Is Math Science?

Okay, this one is gonna be interesting. In the Faith Science--Logically Indefensible thread, Faith made the comment that science will never abandon a KNOWN fact. To which Jar replied, of course science will. nwr then replies with "2 + 2 = 4".It is my opinion that math is not science, and I'd like to try and prove it here (seeing as how it will most undoubtedly be ruled off-topic in the mother thread).Onto the proofs:1)science is tentative. What is known as fact today will not be tomorrow. math is not, to the best of my knowledge, tentative. 2 and 2 will always equal four given the rules we use (1984 does not count).2)science has a method for finding out new things and testing old things. It is the logic behemoth known as the scientific method. THese five steps are the rule by which new scientific knowledge is added. Math has a method--for finding out answers known as the order of operations. It is not a method by which to find new formulas. IT is merely, to my knowledge, a method for arriving at the same answer as the person across from you. It is by this that 3 * 4 + 2 = 14, and not 18.3)where is the philosophy? Science is rooted in methodological philosophy. It has a philosophical root, a foundation. As far as I know, math does not. Granted, Pythagoras used numbers as the thing that the universe was made of, but . . .4)since when was a root a tree? Perhaps a crude analogy, but math is a foundation of science, especially in the fields of physics and chemistry. This is the weakest proof.5) E = mc² is a theoretical construct, based off of what we know about how certain things work. If those things work differently, then the formula is incorrect.Is it science would be appropriate, I would think.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I didn't mean to imply that math can't find new things. I'm just unaware of a method by which though go about finding new discoveries.Anywho, I'd say my point one is still a "proof". If tentativity is not a crucial part of a science, then what is the basis for falsification? If I only know something tentatively, then it can be falsified. We know evolution happens, but there still may be something down the road that throws it out--tentative knowledge. Can you falsify "2 + 2 = 4"?I'll check out the metaphysics, but my offhand guess is that it's gonna be somewhat similar to what Pythagoras proposed.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Bleeker:
modern variation of several words, among them bleaker, blacker, blocker, bleeder, and beaker.It used for any one of these words based off of where you live. Research has shown that where Riverrat lives, bleeker is the "new" way to say beaker. Where I live, it's used for bleaker.(please tell me you saw your mispelling, RR, and that you're only going on with jar's joke)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

the tool that carries out the grunt work of science, hmm.I guess that would have to be us lowly lab assistants (and those pipeters in chemistry/biology).

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.