Mathematics is not a Science

This was a new thought for me that emerged during discussion of exactness of numbers
and shapes in mathematics on Raphael Neelamkavil’s RG question, Is Mathematics an
Exact Science? If Yes, and If Not, Why?. I offer here an examination of the concept
without claiming that it is a proof. I quote first from that post and then follow the
quotation with a more ordered treatment of this fresh insight:

“LFH I do not agree that: "RN If notions like ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘point’, ‘line’, etc. are defined
to be so exact, then it is not by virtue of the exactness of these substantive notions, but
instead, due to their being adjectival: ‘being a unity’, ‘being two unities’, ‘being a non-
extended shape’, etc." 1.0 in the set of Real numbers is abstracted from substance or
quality (the Aristotelian words?) by the formality of Mathematics [note capital M].
Mathematics is astoundingly rigorous within itself, and to invert Spiros Konstantogiannis'
comment: mathematics "has nothing to do with – or better, it is independent of –
physics." That assertion is valid in my world, where Mathematics is independent of any
worldly "reality." In that world view, your "notions" apply to counting numbers but have
no connection with Real numbers and complication fades.

Perhaps part of the difficulty here is the association of pure Mathematics with the concept
of a science. I know that such an association is old and meant to be a compliment - Queen
of the Sciences - but I do not like it anymore. Mathematics is about abstraction, while
Science is about "actual." Ahh, an important comment on theories - I wonder about that.

“[Whoa! I shouldn't get started, sigh. This came after what follows outside [] brackets. To
be meaningful, the content of a science must be "about actual" or it is no better than
fiction as entertainment. Now, fiction in literature may be quite beneficial to
understanding our world, but can there be value in "abstract science?" Science Fiction as
such is different, and as my brother noted, sometimes it opens doors because the
reader/viewer didn't know it was fiction and makes "it" work. Solon said the same thing
to Thespis, that people will imitate plays. Thespis scoffed, but Solon was right. The
abstraction of "actual" to establish its essence seems okay, but then as Raphael
Neelamkavil has presented so strongly, that abstraction contains misleading implications.
No soap bubble, however perfect, will ever be more than connected molecules that do
not form an abstract spherical shape, and pi does not apply to the bubble's
circumference/diameter ratio. Enough. I'm already way off-thread again, sorry.]

“Mathematics has escaped "actual" as completely as possible. Hmmm. It is emphasized

somewhere that we must not be misled by drawings in geometry, because Geometry is
abstract, while the drawings are not. Why diminish Mathematics by including it with
Physics, or Biology, or . . .? Well, it's a thought.

“Happy Trails, Len

“P. S. Of course, ghosts of Mathematics like bookkeeping and surveying are useful if one
runs out of fingers for addition, etc., but mathematics = Mathematics is misleading. lfh”
To clarify the development we define four words. Roughly in accord with Immanuel
Kant we define Pure and Practical, then in accord with existence we define abstract and
actual. “Actual” is chosen to avoid many other words of which readers will be so
confident they know the proper meaning that what I mean will be missed.

Pure exists only in thought, in Pure Mathematics, for instance. Practical exists in
practices like using Practical Mathematics to add objects after sorting them. Abstract
identifies things as only of-the-mind. Actual identifies things that can be experienced. If
you abstract kicking a brick you feel no pain. Kick an actual brick and you do feel pain.
A simple assertion, Pure Mathematics is what Mathematicians do, may be the best
available. The simple companion assertion, Practical Mathematics is the use of
mathematics, also may be the best available. A sorting method for Pure vs. Practical
mathematics is the test: Is the token, symbol, digit, etc., associated with units? I’ll leave
the definitions here and in context later and avoid the libraries of words that can be
written to be more definite to no useful end.

Science treats actual. Abstractions in Science have the purpose of rendering a theory
about actual possible to conceive and calculate. Are they still science? Yes. Are they
Mathematics, either Pure or Practical? No. Why? Because the rigorous body of abstract
thought in Pure Mathematics has no limits that would be created by units like potato! “1
potato” tells us how many (counting numbers) but not “how much” (magnitudes) and 1
potato plus 1 potato equals ? has many answers in magnitude. Are either the actual or the
abstractions of actual in science Practical Mathematics? I say not, any more than a
carpenter’s hammer is part of a house it was used to construct. What about Practical
Mathematics used during surveying? I have read and do agree that a tool may be
discarded after the project is completed without loss. The example of a rock being used
by an Egyptian Vulture to break into Ostrich eggs was used in contrast to a Robin’s nest.
The Vulture walks away from the rock like a carpenter could discard a hammer but the
twigs of a nest remain in it like the studs in a house. The surveyor drives a location stake,
or identifies an elevation marker that have been placed using mathematics: where is that
mathematics when he walks away? Further, Pure and Practical Mathematics are human
creations, and rivers negotiated waterfalls long before any human came along to calculate
that activity even approximately.

So, why bother with this topic? Well, firstly because accuracy is of value in thought and
if mathematics is not a science then numerous investigations of “science is a subset of
mathematics” and “mathematics is a subset of science” will go away. Secondly, if you
explore the works of Raphael Neelamkavil, including RG Q&A posts and associated
documents you will find very strong answers to that question expressed. I expect others
share his thoughts. The point is that misleading impressions from too strong an influence
of mathematics on scientific research interfere with a more valid course of scientific
progress. For instance, mathematical continuity is not actual, nor is discrete character of
actual things and expecting them is misleading. Whether mathematics is a science will
not change that except for the influence of a stain on its halo.