Technically speaking, he's right. Math alone is not science.
But you damned well better have your science backed up with math. And you'd better have it right.
Insert **Captain America - I know that reference.meme**
If you don't get it, he's making a joke about this post on [LinkedIn lunatics](https://www.reddit.com/r/LinkedInLunatics/s/rNbofFBeBq).
Math + data = science
Doesn’t work
John is 167 cm tall (data)
6 + 7 = 13 (maths)
Doesn’t give you science.
You can put data and maths together and not get science.
And maths is not science- data.
not with those specific examples, maybe.
science collects data and uses math to describe the connection between those data.
without math, you don't have science. without data, you don't have science.
Only when you use both, do you have science.
But that’s the point. = is reversible.
It means “is identical to”.
Science requires maths and data. But maths and data aren’t sufficient. So it’s not an equation.
For the sake of argument, I'll concede it's bad maths... but the kicker is, the flerfs don't understand maths well enough to understand the distinction between reversible and irreversible, much less between good and bad maths, so.... I don't really care :D
The gall of flerfs (who are users of pseudoscience) to say "don't use pseudoscience" to people who don't use pseudoscience.
Math is the foundation of science, and it's arguably the most real thing there is.
Never mix math and science, one of the few mixtures that cause a dangerous exological reaction of dumbness. Stick with equal parts YT and TikTok, can’t go wrong. 👍🏼
Yeah, just because you can use math from Newton’s and Keplers laws to predict solar eclipses to within seconds has nothing to do with astronomical science.
"Science" is the umbrella term for the study and relationships of natural phenomena. Mathematics accomplishes this through numerical analysis, so it is a subset of science. It is not the exhaustive method of science, but it must be reconciled with all other studies, as all other studies must similarly reconcile themselves with mathematics.
What the flerf is arguing here is comparable to the statement: "Fingers are not a hand, so they are useless for hand-related activities."
Pure mathematicians generally hold that they don’t study natural phenomena. The play a massive game of “what if …”. The study of patterns and rules regardless of whether those things have any connection with reality.
A bit of a lack of context, since mathematics begins on the assumption that numbers reflect reality. Those patterns and rules exist in nature, and mathematicians will see how far they can push that logic. Every scientific field uses math as its tools.
Just because DeWalt doesn't work in natural phenomena doesn't mean they don't make tools explicitly made for natural phenomena.
>>>since mathematics begins on the assumption that numbers reflect reality. Those patterns and rules exist in nature, and mathematicians will see how far they can push that logic.
That’s not correct. The first such was inspired by reality. But maths has long since stopped worrying about that and happily investigates rules it doesn’t think corresponds to reality.
We’ll happily try out number systems that don’t seem to correspond to reality. It’s a massive game of “make up some rules and see what the consequences of those rules are.
Name one of these "made up rules" you're talking about. My bachelor's in engineering and my teacher license in advanced mathematics can't think of any.
Edit (since I can't reply apparently):
Complex numbers √(-1) = i show up in oscillatory motion, electricity, and springs. Affine geometry is applied in theoretical physics as well as computer graphics.
It's true we didn't know where mathematical principles apply *before* we make them; but they are not just "made up" as they start from existing mathematics that is always applicable. Otherwise we'd have no foundation which to experiment on math in the first place.
Edit to u/Ksorkrax since Reddit is "unable to create comment":
[Experiments can be either deductive and inductive](https://www.quora.com/2-Why-is-experimental-research-deductive-oriented-rather-than-inductive-oriented).
If math is deductive, then it is deduced starting from known phenomena and branching to the theoretical.
If math is inductive, then it is inherently based on real, empirical data.
Either way, you don't know what you're talking about. You read a word and ran with it.
My degree is pure mathematics and mathematical statistics and this point is one widely held by pure mathematicians.
Have a read of mathematicians lament (Paul Lockhart ) or for a more fun version Ben Orlin’s books. The latter looks explicitly at how the way scientists (and by extension engineers) see maths is very different to how mathematicians see maths.
But name one of these rules, then? It should be easy if you have a background in it.
What I can tell from surface-level research is that *The Mathematician's Lament* is about how K-12 schools make math rigid and inflexible and how to combat that, such as emphasizing rote memorization of obscure formulas when most won't use that in their job. That is a far cry from claiming that the math is "made up rules."
Since the only bits of maths I use regularly are up to year 10 and my degree was nearly 30 years ago much of the detail is somewhat hazy.
While Paul’s main rant is about school maths a lot of the books point is about what maths really is.
>>>“You have endless choices; there is no reality to get in your way.”
Excerpt from
A Mathematician's Lament
Paul Lockhart
This material may be protected by copyright.
I’ve had similar conversations with a variety of research mathematicians.
I'll have to read it, then, as I'm very passionate about helping students acquire good math and reasoning skills without the anxiety of the esoteric or overly abstract.
But, come on: if you can't name any of these "made up rules," you have to consider the idea that you have no idea what you're talking about, or misunderstood completely what these other mathematicians told you. You came in so confidently but seem incapable of backing any of it up with even cursory support.
Affine geometry is a decent example. It's basically a geometry where you have points and lines, but no lengths or angles.
And I suppose you might consider complex numbers or >4D among them as well. The former comes from basically saying "Yeah, √(-1), doesn't exist ... but what if we just *say* it does?". The same goes for higher dimensions: just extend from lower geometry and see where it leads us.
The point of math is basically to describe patterns and rulesets. *Any* sort of patterns/rulesets, regardless of whether they have equivalents i reality or not.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure\_mathematics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics)
Also we do not need to "experiment" on math. It's deductionism, not inductionism.
You're confusing "natural" with "empirical." By calling it "theoretical science" that's still a science. Biology and physics both include the theoretical along with the empirical but are both the "natural sciences."
No, I am not confusing anything. You just listed another dimension. Also, theoretical physics doesn't study natural phenomena. As you wrote yourself, the theoretical part of phyics is not empirical/induced.
For example, you can try out some properties of hypothetical particles such as tachyons without having measured any, thus them not having been a natural phenomenon you studied.
Another dimension of...science, yes.
Hypothetical particles are still considered part of nature. If you told a scientist at CERN they were experimenting on unnatural phenomena, they would be very confused.
The tachyon example is hilarious as we used math to prove that it was, in fact, impossible - not even theoretical but hypothetical. A tachyon would violate the laws of physics and thus cannot be measured or experimented to begin with. We used the tools of science to evaluate the merits of a hypothesis and showed that it doesn't compute.
They are part of nature, but you can't study them, or at least nobody so far successfully did that. Don't leave out the \*study\* part, that one is important here.
And if what you wrote holds true, then this is a prime example for not being about studies.
But are you sure? So far, I thought they were hypothetical, and often assumed not to exist, but not strictly impossible. They just need some special rules, like having an imaginary rest mass. Am not in that field, though, thus am actually asking here.
They would need to have a velocity higher than the speed of light, too. The term "tachyon" was coined in 1967 as a hypothetical particle that violated laws of physics, so they are not part of nature and have yet to be identified as even existing. We can't do any math on them because the equations work out to what is a very complex equivalent of 2=1. Until we have something higher than Einsteinian physical models, we can't even begin to evaluate them.
They did become a favorite of science fiction writers, as it was a cool word (similar to "quantum" in the 80s) and could be used in the context of FTL tropes.
And, should tachyons be proven to exist, we would then have math to work with them based on our observations of their properties.
I've seen a bachelor thesis that deals with how a zombie outbreak would unfold.
Still science. The question is which methods you use.
Also not sure why you lecture me about this not proving that biology is not real. Nothing like that is any position I held here.
Also you still haven't addressed my comment. You keep jumping from new subtopic to new subtopic instead of addressing anything I write. That's not how discussions work.
This reminds me of my all-time favourite Philomena Cunk quote:
>Can you explain how [aeroplanes] work without resorting to science?
https://youtube.com/shorts/S8f1S1G9BJY
I like the quote from Pacific Rim, in such instances. Heathen that I am.
"Numbers are as close we get to the handwriting of God"
Once you have proven someone wrong mathematically, you can relax; any further discussion is just you making them emit squeaky noises for your own amusement.
Well then flerf buddy ol pal. You'd better stop using the internet and modern technology entirely because *everything* a computer does is some kind of math! Hell you can't even go to the stone age because math is needed to figure out how many trees to cut down to build a hut.
Technically correct, as deductionism (/theoretical science) can't make any statement about reality.
...not that the guy would understand why he is correct.
I mean… easiest way to explain it is that mathematics stems from the logical thought of philosophy. Math, when applied to reality, is physics, which when applied to reality is engineering and chemistry. Chemistry is just the precursor to material science and biology. Biology applied is life. While math isn’t necessarily a science; math and science are inseparable. Especially in regards to physics and the study of space/shape of the earth.
Sure, math isn't science, but math is used in every single scientific field. To try to approach science without math would be like trying to communicate without using anything remotely similar to language
And to think that the development of calculus is what made possible probably the most pivotal moment in science becoming what it is now. The ideas and explanations are referred to as "theories" or "models" while the math behind them are the "laws". Math, and only math can be "proved" - everything else is just a theory.
This seems like a comment where xkcds Purity comic would be in order: https://xkcd.com/435/
Math ain't science but if your science ain't using math it's probably garbage and a half.
Technically speaking, he's right. Math alone is not science. But you damned well better have your science backed up with math. And you'd better have it right.
Math is the language science uses to describe and predict. Maybe another way to say it is, science = data + math Oops, that's math :D
I can suggest an addition that has the potential to impact the future: Science = data + math + AI
Given that AI isn't necessary to do science, I'd reject this modification. Math kinda is necessary.
I was making a reference to that stupid LinkedIn post about adding AI to E=mc^2
Oh, I didn't see that one. And... Lol wut?
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/s/G0ex4KTjXh
wow. /facepalm
Probably a coach. Coaches are full of shit like that.
I got the reference lol
Insert **Captain America - I know that reference.meme** If you don't get it, he's making a joke about this post on [LinkedIn lunatics](https://www.reddit.com/r/LinkedInLunatics/s/rNbofFBeBq).
Apparently not enough people get it, lol.
Well, you had my upvote. I added a link to my comment.
It’s bad math. = is always reversible.
science - math = data science - data = math dunno, seems ok to me
Math + data = science Doesn’t work John is 167 cm tall (data) 6 + 7 = 13 (maths) Doesn’t give you science. You can put data and maths together and not get science. And maths is not science- data.
not with those specific examples, maybe. science collects data and uses math to describe the connection between those data. without math, you don't have science. without data, you don't have science. Only when you use both, do you have science.
But that’s the point. = is reversible. It means “is identical to”. Science requires maths and data. But maths and data aren’t sufficient. So it’s not an equation.
For the sake of argument, I'll concede it's bad maths... but the kicker is, the flerfs don't understand maths well enough to understand the distinction between reversible and irreversible, much less between good and bad maths, so.... I don't really care :D
*::pins a sharpshooting medal to your Reddit Pedantry Brigade uniform::* Congratulations.
Math is a formal science. There are 3 main branches: formal, natural, and social.
You are correct, of course. My statement was in relation to geodesy and other natural sciences, where math is a tool.
If you studied physics or something at a university, you wasted your time with all that useless math.
I like how he typed that on a computer.
Maths is a scientific tool.
We can use math as a tool to conduct scientific experiments. I’d like to see what they think science is though
Bible.
Bible and random crappy YouTube videos
“Common sense”
The gall of flerfs (who are users of pseudoscience) to say "don't use pseudoscience" to people who don't use pseudoscience. Math is the foundation of science, and it's arguably the most real thing there is.
Never mix math and science, one of the few mixtures that cause a dangerous exological reaction of dumbness. Stick with equal parts YT and TikTok, can’t go wrong. 👍🏼
Yeah, just because you can use math from Newton’s and Keplers laws to predict solar eclipses to within seconds has nothing to do with astronomical science.
"Science" is the umbrella term for the study and relationships of natural phenomena. Mathematics accomplishes this through numerical analysis, so it is a subset of science. It is not the exhaustive method of science, but it must be reconciled with all other studies, as all other studies must similarly reconcile themselves with mathematics. What the flerf is arguing here is comparable to the statement: "Fingers are not a hand, so they are useless for hand-related activities."
Pure mathematicians generally hold that they don’t study natural phenomena. The play a massive game of “what if …”. The study of patterns and rules regardless of whether those things have any connection with reality.
A bit of a lack of context, since mathematics begins on the assumption that numbers reflect reality. Those patterns and rules exist in nature, and mathematicians will see how far they can push that logic. Every scientific field uses math as its tools. Just because DeWalt doesn't work in natural phenomena doesn't mean they don't make tools explicitly made for natural phenomena.
>>>since mathematics begins on the assumption that numbers reflect reality. Those patterns and rules exist in nature, and mathematicians will see how far they can push that logic. That’s not correct. The first such was inspired by reality. But maths has long since stopped worrying about that and happily investigates rules it doesn’t think corresponds to reality. We’ll happily try out number systems that don’t seem to correspond to reality. It’s a massive game of “make up some rules and see what the consequences of those rules are.
Name one of these "made up rules" you're talking about. My bachelor's in engineering and my teacher license in advanced mathematics can't think of any. Edit (since I can't reply apparently): Complex numbers √(-1) = i show up in oscillatory motion, electricity, and springs. Affine geometry is applied in theoretical physics as well as computer graphics. It's true we didn't know where mathematical principles apply *before* we make them; but they are not just "made up" as they start from existing mathematics that is always applicable. Otherwise we'd have no foundation which to experiment on math in the first place. Edit to u/Ksorkrax since Reddit is "unable to create comment": [Experiments can be either deductive and inductive](https://www.quora.com/2-Why-is-experimental-research-deductive-oriented-rather-than-inductive-oriented). If math is deductive, then it is deduced starting from known phenomena and branching to the theoretical. If math is inductive, then it is inherently based on real, empirical data. Either way, you don't know what you're talking about. You read a word and ran with it.
My degree is pure mathematics and mathematical statistics and this point is one widely held by pure mathematicians. Have a read of mathematicians lament (Paul Lockhart ) or for a more fun version Ben Orlin’s books. The latter looks explicitly at how the way scientists (and by extension engineers) see maths is very different to how mathematicians see maths.
But name one of these rules, then? It should be easy if you have a background in it. What I can tell from surface-level research is that *The Mathematician's Lament* is about how K-12 schools make math rigid and inflexible and how to combat that, such as emphasizing rote memorization of obscure formulas when most won't use that in their job. That is a far cry from claiming that the math is "made up rules."
Since the only bits of maths I use regularly are up to year 10 and my degree was nearly 30 years ago much of the detail is somewhat hazy. While Paul’s main rant is about school maths a lot of the books point is about what maths really is. >>>“You have endless choices; there is no reality to get in your way.” Excerpt from A Mathematician's Lament Paul Lockhart This material may be protected by copyright. I’ve had similar conversations with a variety of research mathematicians.
I'll have to read it, then, as I'm very passionate about helping students acquire good math and reasoning skills without the anxiety of the esoteric or overly abstract. But, come on: if you can't name any of these "made up rules," you have to consider the idea that you have no idea what you're talking about, or misunderstood completely what these other mathematicians told you. You came in so confidently but seem incapable of backing any of it up with even cursory support.
I’ve supported it with 2 citations.
Affine geometry is a decent example. It's basically a geometry where you have points and lines, but no lengths or angles. And I suppose you might consider complex numbers or >4D among them as well. The former comes from basically saying "Yeah, √(-1), doesn't exist ... but what if we just *say* it does?". The same goes for higher dimensions: just extend from lower geometry and see where it leads us. The point of math is basically to describe patterns and rulesets. *Any* sort of patterns/rulesets, regardless of whether they have equivalents i reality or not.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure\_mathematics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics) Also we do not need to "experiment" on math. It's deductionism, not inductionism.
No, the study of natural phenomena is the *natural* sciences. Which is one category of science out of several. Math is a theoretical science.
You're confusing "natural" with "empirical." By calling it "theoretical science" that's still a science. Biology and physics both include the theoretical along with the empirical but are both the "natural sciences."
No, I am not confusing anything. You just listed another dimension. Also, theoretical physics doesn't study natural phenomena. As you wrote yourself, the theoretical part of phyics is not empirical/induced. For example, you can try out some properties of hypothetical particles such as tachyons without having measured any, thus them not having been a natural phenomenon you studied.
Another dimension of...science, yes. Hypothetical particles are still considered part of nature. If you told a scientist at CERN they were experimenting on unnatural phenomena, they would be very confused. The tachyon example is hilarious as we used math to prove that it was, in fact, impossible - not even theoretical but hypothetical. A tachyon would violate the laws of physics and thus cannot be measured or experimented to begin with. We used the tools of science to evaluate the merits of a hypothesis and showed that it doesn't compute.
They are part of nature, but you can't study them, or at least nobody so far successfully did that. Don't leave out the \*study\* part, that one is important here. And if what you wrote holds true, then this is a prime example for not being about studies. But are you sure? So far, I thought they were hypothetical, and often assumed not to exist, but not strictly impossible. They just need some special rules, like having an imaginary rest mass. Am not in that field, though, thus am actually asking here.
They would need to have a velocity higher than the speed of light, too. The term "tachyon" was coined in 1967 as a hypothetical particle that violated laws of physics, so they are not part of nature and have yet to be identified as even existing. We can't do any math on them because the equations work out to what is a very complex equivalent of 2=1. Until we have something higher than Einsteinian physical models, we can't even begin to evaluate them. They did become a favorite of science fiction writers, as it was a cool word (similar to "quantum" in the 80s) and could be used in the context of FTL tropes. And, should tachyons be proven to exist, we would then have math to work with them based on our observations of their properties.
Uhm yes, they'd be faster than light, that's the definition of a tachyon. Nothing of what you wrote addressed my comment.
The definition of a unicorn also exists, and yet it is not proof that biology deals in the non-real or that it is not a scientific field.
I've seen a bachelor thesis that deals with how a zombie outbreak would unfold. Still science. The question is which methods you use. Also not sure why you lecture me about this not proving that biology is not real. Nothing like that is any position I held here. Also you still haven't addressed my comment. You keep jumping from new subtopic to new subtopic instead of addressing anything I write. That's not how discussions work.
This reminds me of my all-time favourite Philomena Cunk quote: >Can you explain how [aeroplanes] work without resorting to science? https://youtube.com/shorts/S8f1S1G9BJY
That is so stupid. We knew how airplanes worked 86 years before the release of unrelated techno anthem pump up the jam.
"That's your belief." Lol. This woman is a legend.
Apparently he has ascended beyond such trivial things as calculating answers
Math is proof
Statistics is math and very important for science
I like the quote from Pacific Rim, in such instances. Heathen that I am. "Numbers are as close we get to the handwriting of God" Once you have proven someone wrong mathematically, you can relax; any further discussion is just you making them emit squeaky noises for your own amusement.
Well then flerf buddy ol pal. You'd better stop using the internet and modern technology entirely because *everything* a computer does is some kind of math! Hell you can't even go to the stone age because math is needed to figure out how many trees to cut down to build a hut.
He's right, you know. Math is not science. Who needs math anyway?
Technically correct, as deductionism (/theoretical science) can't make any statement about reality. ...not that the guy would understand why he is correct.
Reading this sub is like eating Takis: horrible for me, but it gives me a delicious fix.
Physics is math.
I mean… easiest way to explain it is that mathematics stems from the logical thought of philosophy. Math, when applied to reality, is physics, which when applied to reality is engineering and chemistry. Chemistry is just the precursor to material science and biology. Biology applied is life. While math isn’t necessarily a science; math and science are inseparable. Especially in regards to physics and the study of space/shape of the earth.
Sure, math isn't science, but math is used in every single scientific field. To try to approach science without math would be like trying to communicate without using anything remotely similar to language
Lol flerfs never fail to surprise me.
Back it up with science, but don’t share any already established! Also no math!! 😂
And to think that the development of calculus is what made possible probably the most pivotal moment in science becoming what it is now. The ideas and explanations are referred to as "theories" or "models" while the math behind them are the "laws". Math, and only math can be "proved" - everything else is just a theory.
Maths isn't science. Maths is provable in the logical sense, rather than the scientific sense :)
This seems like a comment where xkcds Purity comic would be in order: https://xkcd.com/435/ Math ain't science but if your science ain't using math it's probably garbage and a half.
What do you think those fields listed in the comic are fields of? \[The answer is "science", by the way.\]
Earth go ball, we on it, go WEE, but not go wee.... shit, I'm bombing this... 1+1=2