But Darwin, as far as I recall, didn’t use math at all.
You should take a look at modern evolution theories.
A whole host of sciences don’t approach their problems through mathematically described laws or even statistical models.
“Models” are something mathematical by definition. A lot of sciences have very simple models that people can handle without formalism. They are still mathematical, even if you don’t need to calculate things.
I’m not denying that modern evolutionary theories use math and I think it’s important, but that in many sciences, math isn’t the focus like it is in physics. A lot of good science can be done without math. Darwin did good science without math.
To be very clear, science doesn’t need math. We use math as a tool to accurately describe phememona and relationships with math.
I don’t what you are saying about models being mathematical by definition eben if people can handle it. I don’t see how the model of the cell is mathematical. Models require relationships and not mathematics to describe those relationships.
You should take a look at modern evolution theories.
“Models” are something mathematical by definition. A lot of sciences have very simple models that people can handle without formalism. They are still mathematical, even if you don’t need to calculate things.
I’m not denying that modern evolutionary theories use math and I think it’s important, but that in many sciences, math isn’t the focus like it is in physics. A lot of good science can be done without math. Darwin did good science without math.
To be very clear, science doesn’t need math. We use math as a tool to accurately describe phememona and relationships with math.
I don’t what you are saying about models being mathematical by definition eben if people can handle it. I don’t see how the model of the cell is mathematical. Models require relationships and not mathematics to describe those relationships.