Math reflects reality.
I know it doesn’t because math is dependent on the concept that there are two identical things in existence. Concepts are abstractions like “species” and abstractions don’t exist either.
Where have you been finding Platonists? Math is a very useful tool for modeling reality, but all models are false
True.
The problem is some models bear no relationship at all to reality. False models are a handy tool only when recognized as a model and applicable for the purposes used.
This is meaningless nonsense, once again. The appropriate and correct statement is that you can’t do any of the hard sciences without math. At all. Physics is an especially strong example. And in fact, you can’t even do the “soft” sciences like psychology or sociology without math, because for example they often depend on sophisticated statistical analysis.
Your statement just doesn’t mean anything.
No Shaq?
I don’t think I understand. Can you give some examples?
You’ll have a hard time finding someone who disagrees. It’s not a radical idea that models have limitations that have to be recognized- It’s a cliché
There nothing to understand.
And a useless one. I’m sorry I got sucked into this pointless discussion against my better judgment, but I’ll elaborate a bit.
Equations are the crucial way that most theories in the sciences are encoded. They’re the crucial way that we reach conclusions and make predictions. To say that “the math might be wrong” is to say that the theory might be wrong. Of course it might! But it reflects the evidence, and in science even the question of “right” and “wrong” is subservient to the question of “is it useful? Does it have predictive value?”
And it does. All the time. The mathematics of the Standard Model predicted the existence of the Higgs boson and the exact mass it should have. And it was right. Without the math we wouldn’t have had a clue that the Higgs field even existed, never mind the mass of its instantiated particle.
If theories are wrong or the math needs to be tweaked, then so be it. That’s how science advances. But without the math we wouldn’t even have the science in the first place.
I don’t disagree with that either. You need math to make predictions - anything else is hand-waving. But the solutions to almost all interesting equations are approximate, because the equations are too complicated for an exact solution. Math models are the only route to answers, but math models are almost always incomplete (which means wrong to some degree). The challenge of acience is tobfind useful, accurate enough mathematical models so that progress can continue. Didn’t the prediction of the Higgs boson mass come with error bars?
Yes, and I’m afraid I have to modify my claim a bit. What Peter Higgs famously predicted was the idea of a scalar field to explain how elementary particles acquire mass. As with any field, sufficient energies of quantum excitation could instantiate a new particle, which came to be known as the Higgs boson. But the mass of the Higgs boson was not determined by math but by later experimental methods (at CERN and elsewhere) involving the masses of the W and Z bosons.
But certainly the elegant math of QFT – Quantum Field Theory – was instrumental in predicting the existence of the Higgs field in the first place. It was a profoundly important prediction in quantum physics.
There was a guy who claimed to have an invisible third eye on his forehead that opened like a sphincter.
I just popped into this zombie thread to see what it was all about-- still not sure I know-- but I could not let this slide:
What the heck is the justification for using “whom” here? “Who” is perfectly fine, nominative case, not objective. Don’t just stick “whom” in any old place because you think it sounds edumacated. It doesn’t.
Carry on.
I don’t think anyone here knows, either, but we’re still having fun with it! 
And thank you for the nitpick. As a professional pedant with a propensity to be annoying, I should have noticed the misuse of “whom” myself and made a big deal of it, but I just glossed right by it. I’m ashamed!
Maybe to you and to real scientists but most people can’t tell an axiom from a theory. They think they can compute the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin and how many calories they’ll burn.
“They” do?
And whom might “they” be?
I was hoping someone would notice. 
There’s no such thing as “species” or “man”. Every individual reasons in circles because we use language that has been confused for 4025 years.
Why, those who believe in science, of course. …Those who practice scientism.
And what happened to confuse this 4025 years ago?
Nobody seems to want to talk about what I want to talk about so I’m going to try to talk about what you guys want to talk about. Since I disagree with you about everything it should be easy to find a topic.
I just responded to a post above. If you (pl) don’t want to lose another argument don’t call me.
Fiat changing the official metaphysical language to modern languages and the onset of PIE.
We know it only as the so called tower of babel.