Has Mathematics Misled Modern Science?

So some think:
“The idea,” says physicist Lee Smolin, “that the truth about nature can be wrestled from pure thought through mathematics is overdone… The idea that mathematics is prophetic and that mathematical structure and beauty are a clue to how nature ultimately works is just wrong.”


  1. Lee Smolin is right. Too often we shoehorn nature to fit our mathematical models. A good example of this is work in the second half of the 20th century on population dynamics, where continuous models were used, even though it was known that discrete models did not reach the same conclusions. But we are still left with Eugene Wigner’s “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences”. Positrons were predicted as a result of solutions to equations that many assumed were meaningless. So we shouldn’t assume that mathematical solutions are “true” but we should also be alert to the idea that they may be generative. As George E.P. Box pointed out, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

  2. That seems like a decent balance Dylan – it would certainly seem that we are a long way from Popper’s criterion of demarcation of science from non-science, ie. falisifiability, being the whole story. Here are some responses from George Ellis and Joe Silk:
    and a response to the response from Peter Woit

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s