Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 867–872 | Cite as

Christopher Pincock: Mathematics and Scientific Representation

Oxford University Press, New York, 2012
  • Stuart RowlandsEmail author
Book Review

We all have a sense of the success and indeed the power of mathematics in the way science explains the world. Science seems so reliant on mathematics that arguably a purely qualitative theory cannot be judged ‘scientific’ if it cannot be verified quantitatively. Science is so intricately bound-up with mathematics that we have to ask how the success of mathematics in science is possible; yet surprisingly the issue of math’s epistemic contribution doesn’t seem to have the prominence it perhaps deserves in the philosophy of science. The historian Morris Kline (1982) stated that the quest for certainty in the foundations of pure mathematics has not only (and necessarily) failed but has distracted the philosophy of mathematics away from the success of applied mathematics. Mathematics and Scientific Representationis a rare and fairly comprehensive philosophical account of the success of mathematics in science and after reading it you may be left with the impression that something like this...


  1. Chalmers, A. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes: The Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Hestenes, D. (1987). New foundations of classical mechanics. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
  3. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60(8), 732–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kline, M. (1982). Mathematics: The loss of certainty. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Singer, A. E. (1994). DCF without forecasts. Omega, International Journal of Management Science, 22(3), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing and MathematicsUniversity of PlymouthPlymouth, DevonUK

Personalised recommendations