"Of course, on the level of a critical understanding of contemporary theories of the nature of physical reality “exceptional mathematical fluency” is an absolute necessity."

The author wittingly or unwittingly exposes what is apparently lacking in supposed climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming, some of whom have been caught faking 'results' to advance their cause.

Interesting essay.
A pity that he spoilt it by referencing William Demski (a propaganda hack for the "Discovery" Institute) and his absurd attempt to prove the bunkum "intelligent design" thesis using "advanced" mathematical statistics.
Seeing that the usual dim-witted Christians have made some comments
this reference provides a unique understanding of science as an open-ended method of free enquiry as distinct from the now world dominant "religion" of science.
The CD being reviewed also contains a humorous debunking of the "religion of mathematics".
http://global.adidam.org/media/science
This essay provides a unique Understanding of Zero and Infinity
http://beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/zero_point.html
And what is the Unique Potential of Human Beings - are we here just to make toasters, reduce the natural world to a technological waste land while prattling on about "Jesus"?
Or something much more?
http://www.adidam.org/society/beyond_ego/unique_potential_man1.htm

Wilson's views on species extinction rates is highly influential in Green circles and based, as I understand it, almost entirely on mathematical models. I hope his disdain for mathematical competence is not reflected in his own research.

An example from climate science - a well-known sceptic/denier/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, Roy Spencer, has produced work containing mathematical nonsense, see

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model

It's not just the sciences that require some mathematical knowledge - economics students are often unpleasantly surprised at the amount of mathematics they have to learn.

Most surprisingly mathematics can rear its head in any area of study - even ancient history / religion. A non-mathematician friend recently referred me to a new book in his field, title "Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus"
by Richard Carrier (for details see http://www.amazon.com/Proving-History-Bayess-Theorem-Historical/dp/1616145595) - apparently he thinks that if it is mathematically sound (and, I suppose, if the mathematics is really relevant) then it's quite a significant work

Sells,

As I put it, it is important to understand what mathematical models can and what they cannot do. I have no experience with biology, but it is probably true that, more than in physics and engineering, one can try to use mathematical models where they - although appripriately reflecting some features of reality - cannot lead to any useful insights or even results.

I do not think this is the case with the Minkowskian model of space-time, since the time coordinate is not interchangeable with the three space coordinates. [Minkowski space is a four-dimensional real vector space equipped with a nondegenerate, symmetric bilinear form with signature (-,+,+,+); here the minus stands for the time coordinate]. So even in this model time does not “look the same”. It “is” not another dimension, it is only represented by a dimension (coordinate) in this particular model of reality.

Raycorn,

As far as I know climate scientist are not concerned with contemporary theories dealing with “understanding the nature of reality”, i.e. they do not discuss whether or not superstring theory, loop quantum gravity, M-theory etc adequately represent physical reality at it basest.

Daffy Duck,

Absurd or not, you cannot debunk a “theory” built on mathematical statistics unless you understand the maths used. Like you cannot debunk any nonsense expressed in Chinese if you do not understand Chinese. Also, the understanding of basic mathematical terms in http://beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/zero_point.html is indeed, politely expressed, “unique”.

jeremy,

I think it is a difference whether you use mathematical models to explain something, or even solve some practical problems, and whether you use mathematical concepts and relations to form a metaphor that helps YOU to understand YOUR preconceived ideas. There is nothing wrong with the other, unless you present it as an explanation binding also for those who do not share your initial position.

george..im just now listening..to alexjones
http://rss.infowars.com/20140117_Fri_Alex.mp3

at around 2;30
anyhow..he is refuting global warming..my point being
he obviously USES MATH..but he hasnt put iT ..into formulation

ie/like ..let C=climate
C=Sun activity..MOON Location..jet steam
NOW WE KNOW ITS NOT CONSTANT..as the sun..needs an..activity
the moon needs a position..and the jet stream needs A velocity..
then..THE SUN..needs a force degree..wITH..a moon modifier..etc

but lets talk..of a more common example
E=mc2..[WHAT HAS C../ie speed of light squared]..TO DO With..MASS

why cant E=M..[to some power of]
say..E=m..]TO the power of 10..[or 10.000...OR WHATEVER.

thing is most of the SCIENCE/stuff..that needs 'math'
has its application..by the formula..[i feel the formula..is the key..more so than the math.][but not everything can be formulated..[probability..is limited by THE UNknown Probables.]

funny how i met a woman/the other day..who was doing math..on her hand
just..covered with numbers..[im still TRYING TO FIGURE..out what was MEANT..by our meeting.]..ANYHOW IM IMPRESSED BY The comments you have generated..

anyhow cheers
[computer problems persist]..
But..that was factored in/..going in.