Although the core business of most, if not all sciences, is mathematics in itself a science? I’ve had various discussions with various people and so far I haven’t received a conclusive answer.
On the one hand, the argument goes like that since mathematics is an integral part of all sciences, it is in itself a ‘science’ as well: without maths, no science…
On the other hand, one can say that just like with only letters, you don’t get a language or literature (you need other things as well, like setting, background, grammar etc), similarly with only maths you don’t get a science.
So only letters are NOT literature, but a specific combination of them can make literature…thus only maths is not science, but the setting in which it is used make the whole setting ‘science’.
Math is most definitely a science (but a little more than just a science). It is a science of structure, order, and relation of counting, measuring (science of size), and describing. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculations (as PCG mentioned brain side)… so it is a science. On the other hand, e.g., my son goes to a Math and Science Academy…. So it must be something more than just science else they would have called it just Science Academy.
PCG, ravage, Madhanee: I wouldn't agree with you three that maths is a science. I think it's a tool for science, just like a lab is another tool for certain sciences.
What is the major characteristic of science? Be it social sciences, physical sciences, biomedical sciences? Namely, that it is based on empirism, on empirical data. By practicing science (=conducting research) you collect empirical data, and among other things analyzing that data (=maths) you can draw certain conclusions. This whole process is actually the science. In maths, or in mathematical research there is no collecting of empirical data. SO by that criteria I'm reluctant to see maths as a science. It's more a tool for science.
Maths is more a system of its own. There is definitely research possible in maths, but whatever results you get with that research, they are of no use unless you apply them to one of the sciences
As an engineer, I beleive Math to be a set of tools applied to solve a particular problem. But try not to tell a pure mathematician that Math is not a science but a tool :>
the sicentific method and thus science got defined much later, than it started floating around....its traditionally used to describe study of physics, chem and bio and medicine, thought there is nothing about the earlier days of western medicine that you could call as 'scientifically based'!......there is history associated with its usage, newer disciplines get associated with being sicence or not, if they simply define the more recent criteria set by the scientific method, but its difficult to call math a science since its not a recent discipline and since it never got called a science before.....if u dig deep into this, and into alternative studies u'll realise how much of what gets called science and what does not, is just based on whether traditional scientist circles are backing it or not....there is an endless list of alternative studies which keep proving thier mettle in a scientifucally 'measurable' way, inspite of the fact that they follow a methodology which is clearly 'unsiceintic'.
correct me if I'm wrong, but in the last category, do you see fields like social and >>economical sciences there?
no i wasn't referring to them...i kno what u mean, its true econ and social sciences are considered softer sicences and the 'sceintific' method doesnt as easily apply to them like it does with natural ones....even then they still have thier newness to go for them.....its like becoz economics and social sciences, have only been around for a short time, they got lucky to be called sicences since they started using the scientific ways to go about increading thier knowledge base quite quickly or lets say right from te start..
but there are other fields that people are not ready to recoginze into mainstream body of knowldege, only becoz the the knowledge does not historically find its origins thru westerm institutions and bodieso f knowledge....its particualry true in the field of medical science.
[quote]
there is an endless list of alternative studies which keep proving thier mettle in a scientifucally 'measurable' way, inspite of the fact that they follow a methodology which is clearly 'unsiceintic'.
[/quote]
If contemporary medical sciences are in this category i don't see why the methodology they follow is unscientific.....?
You dork, now I don’t remember the rest of my post. I am boycotting this forum from now on. 
