Steve Schwartz replies to Leslie Bruder (who replied to Deryk Barker):

>One thing that mathematics allows you to do is to predict the outcome
>of a situation you haven't met before, related to the real world or not.
>This is, of course, accomplished by building on a collection of theorems
>and proofs.  Mathematics may allow you to describe something you already
>know (in that sense, EVERYTHING -- or nearly -- is math).  But without
>that predictive power, there's no real advantage to prefer a mathematical
>description over a loose, verbal one, except that mathematics, as the
>Queen of Sciences, enjoys the prestige of science among a non-scientific
>community, whose only contact with science or mathematics comes at third-
>or fourth-hand through engineering and technology.

I would say that it's our undstanding of the physical laws of nature,
not mathematics, that allows us to predict the outcome of a situation
we haven't met before.  Math gives us a clearer view of the patterns and
correlations that exist in nature and in other places (even the arts).
For example, we can use the formula F = ma to see the correlation between
force, mass, and accleration.  We could see much of the same by pushing
a rock up hill, but our view of the forces at work wouldn't be as clear.

Discussing this further: We can use F = ma to predict the outcome of new
situations.  Is it math or physics or both?

Mike