|
|
|
|
|
by majewsky
1525 days ago
|
|
Mathematics is not a field of natural science, but it is a science too. I've seen it classified as "structural science" before. It operates on the same tenets of the scientific method (which, in one sentence, can be described as "methodically testing falsifiable hypotheses"). The only difference to natural science is that the testing does not involve interrogating the physical world through experiments. |
|
There are also those who advance the premise that mathematics is empirical, but for the context of the discussion I'm not sure that either is relevant.
Mathematical "testing" can be described as deduction.
We can present math axioms, but can we present scientific axioms?
Science as a religion or science as an all encompassing worldview is unscientific. This is better described as scientism.
If you examine the premises of climate doom, you'll find unscientific presuppositions. There are also necessarily moral implications to the goals of regulating consumption and population size. It becomes even less scientific for cynics who question if the climate scientist's "experiments" and models are incentivized to necessitate certain conclusions.
These are items which are best disputed in their respective arenas. "Believe the science" doesn't tell us anything about morality or the ideological progenitors of the climate movement. It narrows the issue while mischaracterizing science as a system of belief which can inform us on moral matters or the historical record of climate doom ideologues.