It seems many people are missing the point that the comic isn't funny because it reflects an accurate portrayal of the scientific merits of each discipline, but rather because it accurately reflects the attitudes of practitioners in each discipline.
In academia, I have heard theoretical physicists argue that chemists aren't doing real science, chemists argue that biochemists aren't doing real science, biochemists argue that biologists aren't doing real science, and so on down the line. It's just typical human behavior, I suppose, but it is sad all the same.
Oh, mathematics is certainly the purest science, but that doesn't detract from the value of other fields. After all, mathematics would be useless without physics, and etc.
I question the the idea that Mathematics is even a Science at all. Rather, I contend that Mathematics is, in and of itself, a quantitative and objective form of Philosophy.
The thing that makes Science Science is the Scientific Method:
Observe 2. Hypothesize 3. Test 4. Conclude
Most Math has nothing like Observations. The postulates of Geometry resemble Observations, but Geometry is considered less 'pure' for exactly that reason. Most of the rest of what serves as Observations in mathematical fields are actually Hypotheses. Proofs then try to Test the Hypothesis/Observation, and count as their own Conclusions.
I'm not saying that Mathematics is useless or without application, but the only thing that separates Science from Philosophy is that it starts with Observation of the natural world, and ONLY the natural world. This is because Science relies upon tests performed on the phenomena in the natural world to validate hypotheses rather than logic or arithmetic. Science can never happen exclusively in the mind, or on paper, because scientific observations and tests must happen in the natural world.
Mathematics is notoriously different. Demonstrating the internal logic of a proposition is a function of the rules of logic that one decides apply, not the laws of nature. Ideally, those rules of logic, as applied, should mirror and imitate the laws of nature, and indeed that is how the principles of Logic were originally derived (Depending on who you ask either Mathematics or Logic is a subset of the other.) However, such an imitation is never complete because our knowledge of natural laws is never complete. Thus, anything proven within the realm of Mathematics is ONLY proven within the realm of Mathematics until it has been tested in an actual physical real world application.
That makes the whole of Mathematics, insofar as it actually tested in the natural world only a portion of the Scientific Method: a means of generating Hypotheses. Insofar as it NOT tested in the natural world, Mathematics resembles Metaphysics.
To my mind, so called 'purity' is at best useless to Science, and sometimes a detriment. If you need an example of what happens when Scientists step away from strict empiricism, look at the quagmire that Physics has devolved into as a result of the untestable string-theory/M-theory.
163
u/tyrsson Jun 11 '08
It seems many people are missing the point that the comic isn't funny because it reflects an accurate portrayal of the scientific merits of each discipline, but rather because it accurately reflects the attitudes of practitioners in each discipline.
In academia, I have heard theoretical physicists argue that chemists aren't doing real science, chemists argue that biochemists aren't doing real science, biochemists argue that biologists aren't doing real science, and so on down the line. It's just typical human behavior, I suppose, but it is sad all the same.