Without being able to deduce an event in mother nature into a neatly prescribed function, there would be no way to analyze it, isn’t it? And there would be no way to predict the future event. How could we describe the future behavior of such event if we can’t even describe it mathematically. So, how do mathematicians deduce such event into a function?
Misunderstanding No.1:
Mathematicians deduce nothing; it is scientists who observe, quantify, model and test.
Mathematics may, I repeat may, be a part of the modeling procedure, but it is not necessary for an understanding of nature.
Misunderstanding No. 2:
Understanding and prediction do not require mathematics; e.g. the fields of Geology, Meteorology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. although they may require "measurement" of some kind, do not require mathematics in order to "predict" future events. – As a matter of fact, often the mathematics "behind the modeling" is so flawed as to produce nonsense in their predictions; e.g. long-range meteorological predictions or "global warming" models.
Misunderstanding No. 3:
In trying to "model" their data, scientists seek out existing mathematical methods … they rarely develop their own methodologies. With Newton as the only exception that I know of, scientists "find the function" to fit the facts – and when the function fails, they discard it and find another.
How do mathematicians create functions to model behavior that is so unpredictable that it can’t possibly be modeled by a function? They can’t. Such phenomena are completely unpredictable. This is why mathematicians fare no better on the Kentucky Derby than the rest of us.
Fortunately, however, many natural phenomena can be modeled by functions, usually by simplifying the phenomenon. What you do is take a mound of relevant data and try to fit a function to it. For objects at low speeds, the force of friction on them is proportional to their velocity. At higher speeds, that data is irrelevant, but more closely fits to being proportional with the square of its velocity. If you want to predict the motion of an object, for example, all that is required is to model each force that acts on it (as above), sum each of those functions, and then solve the resulting differential equation.
References :
Misunderstanding No.1:
Mathematicians deduce nothing; it is scientists who observe, quantify, model and test.
Mathematics may, I repeat may, be a part of the modeling procedure, but it is not necessary for an understanding of nature.
Misunderstanding No. 2:
Understanding and prediction do not require mathematics; e.g. the fields of Geology, Meteorology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Psychology, etc. although they may require "measurement" of some kind, do not require mathematics in order to "predict" future events. – As a matter of fact, often the mathematics "behind the modeling" is so flawed as to produce nonsense in their predictions; e.g. long-range meteorological predictions or "global warming" models.
Misunderstanding No. 3:
In trying to "model" their data, scientists seek out existing mathematical methods … they rarely develop their own methodologies. With Newton as the only exception that I know of, scientists "find the function" to fit the facts – and when the function fails, they discard it and find another.
References :