There's an argument that you need math to explain it because it is math -- just not what we're taught to think of as "math".
One of my gripes with the current education system is that it makes it hard to recognize when math appears in situations not explicitly involving numbers, equations, and matrices.
It reminds me of a text that Feynman wrote about when he gave classes in Brazil, the students knew all the theory and the math behind it, but they could not recognize the phenomenon when it happened in the real world.
So I guess that is not only in math, but in the entire corpus of knowledge, our system makes us prepared for grading tests, not for applying the knowledge.
He told a room full of students that a French curve (that extremely curvy shape used in technical drawing) has the remarkable property that the tangent of the lowest point is always horizontal.. and they all believed him.
Well it's true, isn't it? I think that point was that they were astounded that the curve had that feature because they didn't understand why it was always horizontal. They thought it was magic.
Uh the point seemed that they knew the theory (of differentiation, tangents, trig etc) but were absolutely helpless in practically applying it. Couldn't relate the theory they had learnt to what they knew of the world, at all. Didn't think 'But the lowest point of ANY curve is horizontal!'
The hand points at the Moon. The dog barks at the hand.
Math is confused with arithmetic, which is one tiny subset of math, and notation, which isn't math at all but is merely a tool mathematicians use to communicate more clearly because some concepts are too bulky when you attempt to express them using words. The essence of math is careful reasoning, following step-by-step processes to derive new truths from existing ones. If you do that, you're doing math, and if you do it without arithmetic or notation, people will say you're doing math without math.
I wonder if you meant to post "There's an argument you need math, because math is logic.", which is tangentially true, but that's not the point i'm making.
> There's an argument that you need math to explain it because it is math
* More specifically, it's a mathematical idea, so, in order to explain it, it would be impossible not to use other mathematical ideas. These other ideas exist throughout the article and are [incorrectly] separated from what the average person thinks when they hear "math" but it's math, nonetheless. For instance, the many graphs throughout the article should be recognized as math.
There's an argument that you need math to explain it because it is math -- just not what we're taught to think of as "math".
One of my gripes with the current education system is that it makes it hard to recognize when math appears in situations not explicitly involving numbers, equations, and matrices.