1

How to view "applications of maths" to non-natural sciences or drawing theories from mathematics to other fields?

For example, sociology sees a lot of "applications" of physics (e.g. thermodynamics) and maths/stats and while one can reason that they may be used as methodologies, then occasionally I think that this practice has at least the following pitfalls:

1) The fields have different epistemological basis and therefore the truth on the other is not necessarily truth in the other.

2) Since mathematics is a harder science than, say, sociology, then this can create a false perception of "more legitimacy" and e.g. distinctions between "computational sociologists" and "the rest". Particularly I've found that laymen can have an over-realistic belief into the accuracy of mathematics, because they may interpret mathematics only through some naive heuristical philosophies, like "it's the language of science".

It seems that in sociology etc. those doing these draws don't really get much bashing, on the contrary, they might be praised for being "clever". Even if the theory (from a mathematicians point of view) would be pseudo-intellectuality and irrational belief into numbers.

mavavilj
  • 7,270
  • It's not an opinion-based if one tries to argue it on the epistemological basis. That is, whether computational sociology can ever be "correct" and why? – mavavilj Apr 15 '18 at 09:23
  • "mathematics is a harder science" - what is your epistemological basis for this 'fact'? – Nadiels Apr 18 '18 at 13:45
  • @Nadiels Because it finds applications in physics. It's in some sense in accordance with physical reality or at least our conception about it. Physics, among other natural sciences, are the hardest sciences there are. – mavavilj Apr 18 '18 at 14:51
  • Natural sciences are the hardest sciences there are... what on earth does this mean? How is physics "harder" than a well constructed philisophical argument, an insightful and empirically examined feature of social behaviour, an artistic movement, a composition of classical music, a composition of modern music and so on and on and on... you have no basis at all to say physics is harder, and if you argue that physics accords with out perception then one could argue physics is now made easier than art which challenges and defies our naive perceptions. – Nadiels Apr 18 '18 at 15:20
  • An older term that carries less bagage than hard is exact. Incidentally, you might find Isaac Asimov's Foundation stories of interest. See also Asimov's future science of Psychohistory. – Dave L. Renfro Apr 18 '18 at 16:07
  • @Nadiels Would you rather want to be without the applications of physics or without philosophy? => physics is harder. Particularly, hard here means concrete. – mavavilj Apr 18 '18 at 17:05
  • @mavavilj You seriously believe there could be a physics without a philosophy? None of these subjects exist in isolation of each other or the time period, was Aristotle a physicist or a philosopher? I would say the distinction is not meaningful and neither is your attempt to order them. Anyway you do you, but I believe your thinking on this issue is muddled and condescending. – Nadiels Apr 18 '18 at 17:14

1 Answers1

0

I am not sure what you mean by sociology exactly but if it includes the study of mammal populations then certainly the Lotka-Volterra equation is a perfectly respectable application of mathematics to sociology.

Mikhail Katz
  • 42,112
  • 3
  • 66
  • 131