# Mathematics: "the handmaiden of the sciences" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 10, 2008, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mathematics-the-handmaiden-of-the-sciences/444819 "2008-04-10T23:16:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mathematics-the-handmaiden-of-the-sciences/444819/41 "2011-10-16T18:23:01Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > …most dictionaries do indeed place the most common definition first. See post 17. I’m not sure about most. The acclaimed [Websters New World College Dictionary](http://www.amazon.com/Websters-College-Dictionary-Indexed-Fourth/dp/0028631188) (4th ed, 2007) retains the historical ordering. And that ordering can vary from “Most popular usage”. Consider global: the first definition that comes to my mind is not, 1. “Round like a ball”. Rather it is, 2. of, relating to, or including the whole earth. [Merriam Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/def.htm) (a somewhat inferior product by a separate publisher, IMHO) also uses historical ordering. > [@njtt](#): > > During medieval times, what we now call “science” was considered a part of philosophy. Agreed. See post 29. The handmaiden metaphor was a popular one. > [@robardin](#): > > Funny because not long ago, this phrase came up again with my wife, in the context of her giving a math talk to an audience mostly of physicists, one of who trotted out the phrase again that mathematics was like a “handmaiden” to Physics. I’m curious about contemporary usages of the semi-archaic word “handmaiden”. Was the physicist being flippant? Is the implication “Assistant” _as it is used in specific examples_ or “Joined at the hip?”. My perception is that the comic in post 25 captures modern perceptions. > [@njtt](#): > > I don’t doubt it. I did not say nobody in science ever does the hypothesis and test thing. I am sure a lot of it goes on. What I _am_ saying is that there is also a lot of scientific research, real science, good science, even brilliant science (such as the way Galileo _actually_ refuted Aristotle’s theory about falling bodies) that does not fit that mold. Thus it provides a very poor, and even dangerous, way to _define_ science. Much of the best science would be stigmatized as not really science at all under that definition. Furthermore, the scientific revolution of the 17th century was _not_ the result of the sudden discovery or invention of the hypothesis and test methodology. Popper’s characterization is a useful way of thinking about and teaching science. And it is critical to have an ethic where empirical reality disciplines your concepts. Furthermore, it is appropriate to build in techniques that mitigate against the tendency to fool yourself: it is because people are _not_ robotic logic processors that the scientific method is useful, even if only as a metaphor. Descriptively, Popper’s framework has much to be desired: this has been understood by philosopher’s of science since at least Kuhn (1962). While there are more accurate descriptions of what actual scientists do, I’m not aware of a better or more heuristic definition of science than that encapsulated in the scientific method. “Progressive problem shifts” doesn’t cut it. So I’m sticking with Popper until I see something better (with caveats and acknowledgement of legitimate concerns). Then again, I haven’t looked at this stuff for years. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mathematics-the-handmaiden-of-the-sciences/444819/42 "2011-10-16T18:56:27Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > See post 17. I’m not sure about most. The acclaimed [Websters New World College Dictionary](http://www.amazon.com/Websters-College-Dictionary-Indexed-Fourth/dp/0028631188) (4th ed, 2007) retains the historical ordering. And that ordering can vary from “Most popular usage”. Perhaps my view is somewhat skewed by the dictionaries used in my field—namely, machine-readable ones. I work with computational word sense disambiguation (that is, given a word in context, how to make a computer determine which of the dictionary senses it’s being used in). The baseline algorithm is to assume the word’s being used in the first sense listed. For words which have more than one sense, this approach yields an accuracy of about 80%, which is empirical evidence that the first sense is indeed the most frequent one. Probably the most common dictionary which was historically used for such research was the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, though nowadays it’s been superseded by more liberally licensed resources such as Wiktionary and WordNet. Various Webster and Oxford dictionaries have also been used, though I’d have to check the papers to find out which ones. ---
**Author:** ![ganita](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7feea3/32.png) [@ganita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ganita)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mathematics-the-handmaiden-of-the-sciences/444819/43 "2011-11-01T16:05:19Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Namaste **ganita** , I can see why you would take this personally! 🙂 > > Actually, if you’re thinking of Bell’s 1951 book _Mathematics: Queen and Servant of Science_, then I think he was very deliberately asserting that mathematics is important in **both** roles: namely, as the paradigmatic ideal of rational certainty that other sciences aspire to, and as the useful functionary who provides necessary services and tools for other sciences to work with. Thank you Kimstu and Namaste to you too! I have tracked down Bell’s 1951 text and it has an interesting historical note on the copyright page: > [@](#): > > An integration and amplification of two earlier volumes by the same author: “The Queen Of The Sciences”, 1931, The Williams & Wilkins Company, and “The Handmaiden Of The Sciences”, 1937, The Williams & Wilkins Company. So, your eloquent explanation above is spot on. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![robardin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@robardin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robardin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mathematics-the-handmaiden-of-the-sciences/444819/44 "2011-11-01T18:43:37Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The handmaiden metaphor was a popular one. I’m curious about contemporary usages of the semi-archaic word “handmaiden”. Was the physicist being flippant? Is the implication “Assistant” _as it is used in specific examples_ or “Joined at the hip?”. My perception is that the comic in post 25 captures modern perceptions. I wasn’t present when the anecdote in question happened, but it was clear in context that the quoter equated use of the archaic term “handmaiden” with the image of a subordinate, socially inferior and specifically female assistant. This was done with intentionally sexist overtones, as a teasing joke rather than in earnest, since my wife is a mathematician and all the other people in the small group were male physicists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mathematics-the-handmaiden-of-the-sciences/444819.md?page=2)