Amusing article, but I fundamentally disagree. mathematics is NOT a science. The author of the article ignores a very important difference between math and the sciences: if a hypothesis in the sciences has withstood a great number of challenges and produces new results that are testable and survive the tests, then that hypothesis is accepted, at least provisionally.<quoted text>
Mathematics is science.
"Because nature is mathematical, any science that intends to describe nature is completely dependent on mathematics. It is impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences."
This is not true in mathematics. For example, Goldbach's conjecture is the claim that every even number more than 4 can be written as a sum of two prime numbers. For example, 12=5+7. Here, 12 is even and 5,7 are both primes. Another: 100=47+53. The conjecture is that this is always possible for any even number more than 4.
Every even number (more than 4) we have ever tested can be written as a sum of two primes. If mathematics acted like a science, Goldbach's conjecture would be held to be validated simply by this fact. But, in practice, it is NOT. The reason is that mathematics doesn't use observation and testing to support the truth of a proposition: it uses formal proof. And that is the *only* support accepted in mathematics. So, while a single counter-example is enough to show a hypothesis to be wrong, a mathematical proposition is not accepted until it has been rigorously proven.
As the author of the article points out, such proof is possible in mathematics, but it is not possible in the natural sciences. This is a HUGE difference and reflects a basic difference in math and the sciences.
At this point, Goldbach's conjecture is neither accepted nor rejected by the mathematical community: it is seen as an interesting, but unresolved conjecture.