Why Is Science Even Possible?

In the introduction to an article of the title above, the author (actually podcast host, Steven Strogatz) stated:

“But why is nature like this? Why is it so comprehensible? And why is math so uncannily effective at explaining it, not just in physics, but also in chemistry, in astronomy, and even in some parts of biology? In short, why is science even possible?”

As to the question’s answer (I didn’t continue to read the piece), it was provided recently by none other than Richard Dawkins, in the form of “It works, bitches.” If we had tried it and it didn’t work, you would only find references to it in intellectual history books.

But that is not what I intend to focus upon. My focus here is on the phrase “And why is math so uncannily effective at explaining it. . . .” Math doesn’t explain shit. Math can be considered as being a language and languages do not explain themselves. They can be a medium by which an explanation can be stated, but they do not explain anything just by being implemented.

The attitude underlying this quote, I believe humbly (not), comes from the struggle of many to address math when studying science. For example, a significant hurdle for chemistry majors in undergraduate school is the topic of physical chemistry, which I described at the time I was taking it as “all the worst chemistry, physics, and calculus has to offer combined into a single course.” I was very proud of getting a B in the first semester and an A in the second. (That was before everyone got As for just showing up.) My pride stemmed from not being a particularly good student in math, or really much of anything, so those grades in a tough course were a significant source of pride for me.

And really, questions such as “But why is nature like this? Why is it so comprehensible?” are not worthy of our attention. Science is built upon regularities we observe in nature. If those regularities did not exist, then there would be chaos instead . . . and we would not exist to ask the questions. Our very existence is based upon the regularities of natural processes.

This post was in a highly regarded science blog, but it needed a bit more editorial direction. Maybe they were short on content for an issue.

I remember when I first wrote for the magazine I had signed on to edit, when back then we were “in print” and you couldn’t just post a smaller or larger issue. We had 48 pages and none of them could be blank, and I had a one and a half page hole with nothing to fill it. I learned a new definition of terror, but I filled that hole and as I found similar holes often enough, I found my voice and now I have published dozens of books, along with many dozens of those magazine articles. Among them I suspect there is more than a soupçon of nonsense, like the above, so mea culpa.