Dear Professor Maria

Yes, I am fully agreed with this opinion.

Actually ...very closely yes. The other sciences tend to pale in comparison, and, inasmuch as they are actually sciences, are ultimately predicated on physics.

Kamal, I agree with you too, physics and mathematics are very closely intertwined however, to the extent of sometimes not being distinguishable - it's therefore not 'for example' - it's the only example.

This is one of those turf questions that inspires lively debate.    It is unfortunate when Science is viewed by Ernest Rutherford, father of nuclear physics, as a sort of territory of Physics with the other sciences playing the role of villages.

I definitely agree with @Kamal Eddin Bani-Hani about the pivotal role of mathematics as the mother of all science.    I would go a bit further and point to the other sciences such as biology and chemistry that do things that are not part of the physics milieu.

A convincing defense of the role of biology as a dominant (not subordinate) science is given on page 23 in

http://www.microsoft.com/global/eu/RichMedia/futures/futures_06.pdf

Rutherford was very mild.

Here is, verbatim, what Murray Gell-Mann said on the same topic:

Quote

There is much more difference between a human being who knows quantum mechanics, and one that does not, than between one that does not and the other great apes. The big divide is between people who know quantum mechanics and people who don't. The ones who don't are, for this purpose (of understanding nature), goldfish'.

Unquote

Strong words .....

Thank you! As much as I admire Rutherford's admirable works, I couldn't help smiling at this quotation, because it is absolutely provocative, and as much as we would tend not to agree, it certainly bears an interesting demand for the update and perfection of all scientific fields, in general.

Yes, Mathemastics is the Mother of Sciences, and yes, Science should be a «single-virtuous-child», but Rutherford's request is certainly that all the fields of Science should reunite in the quest for truth and simplicity, with the same common «mother-language», accessible to all.  (ResearchGate is doing a marvelous job, in this field!)

Thank U! 

Best regards to all, 

Maria

And here's another quote, by this time the physicist Joao Magueijo: 

Quote After our extreme intellectual experiences, other pursuits - chatting to friends, eating, drinking ... - become dull by comparison. That's why so many physicists become the ultimate social suicides. Unquote

No other science elicits such fanaticism - I believe it arises because of physics' astonishing, unexpected, totally counterintuitive, yet extremely deep explanatory power

We need all disciplines, each working at its own scale of analysis and perception. What would Biology be when it would have been limited by approaches used in Quantum Physics, e.g. knocking different physical entities (e.g. living beings) against a plate or each other until the physical entities (e.g. living beings) fall apart, and analyze the pieces to get an idea how nature is organized?

The way we do cience has changed a lot since the days of Rutherford. Genetics did not exist as it is done today. Even our collegues in economy do much more modelling and statistics as Rutherford could dream of. I am a devoted theoretical physicist myself and of course I like the way we do sience. But honestly, by striving for the most elementary and most fundamental entities we easily forget that understanding complex systems is of importance as well!

Physics is a special kind of "religion" since it tries to explain the beginning. Probably, because of this Rutherford has considered as so fundamental. One should not forget that many of these early Scientists (especially in the Physics domain) were deeply religious as well. The initial conditions of the Universe are where the roots of the physics goes... No matter how do you call it, after all the basic question what and why was before "the beginning" remains unsolved...

Thanks, Clifford Miller! Your long answer says it all, to all.

(you found a straight answer to the smooth curves of this debate!)

I prefer to add to the precious previous answers that "Physics is the Mother of Sciences".

Please, could some one show the original text of Rutherfords statement?

As mentioned before, people (like any other biological beings) do not require to know every detail in nature to live, to be happy, to increase the quality of living.... This also expected when our biological beings together with our brain would be the result of a long evolutionary-based natural selection process, or not?

Specialists studying Quantum Physics claim they study Fundamental Laws of Nature when they study ‘strong’ nuclear forces or ‘weaker’ electromagnetic forces that involve basic building stones in nature. Specialists studying Chemistry claim they study Fundamental Laws of Nature when they examine forces that combine elements (atoms) that construct molecules. Astrophysicists claim they study Basic Laws of Nature when they focus on gravity forces that influence the organization of permanently moving solar systems or galaxies. Some experts in Physics or Chemistry apparently are desperately searching for unifying theories that take attractive and repulsive forces at very small (Quantum Physics) and very large spatio-temporal scales (Astrophysics) into account. They occasionally construct expensive ‘science cathedrals’ to study ‘invisible’ phenomena. But why do specialists in Quantum Physics or Astrophysics ignore forces at intermediate spatio-temporal scales of analysis in a discipline perhaps to be called Biophysics? Numerous scientists support the idea that living beings are fundamentally built up from energy waves, energy particles, atoms and molecules studied in Physics and Chemistry. Biophysics could perhaps be defined as a discipline aimed to better understand attractive or repulsive forces amongst living beings that compose mates, groups, species or communities. Why two individuals exposed to the ‘same’ perceived earth gravity force decide to approach or avoid each other? How do physically ‘invisible’ fields influence individual decisions concerning initiation of attraction or avoidance? Are ‘biotic social’ forces that act at the scale of Biophysics disconnected from ‘abiotic physical’ forces that act at the scale of Astrophysics or Quantum Physics? Some philosophers assume that every aspect in nature could be defined as Physics.

«All science is either physics or stamp collecting» (Ernest Rutherford of Nelson, 1871-1937, British physicist) In J.B.Birks Rutherford of Manchester (1962), p. 108  (As quoted from the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, 4th Ed, 1996, p.552)

(I can see your point of view., dear Hanno. All quotations are dangerous, when devoid of their original context... But I though this quotation was great fun, as it is, when I read it, last Saturday night.) 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/142/3594/943.2.extract

The laws of nature are but the mathematical thoughts of God - Euclid

Physics explains it self through mathematics and abstract mathematical theories. Without mathematics there is no physics, unless it is the physics of fiction writers. Theory of classical mechanics has life and real existence of growth after the advent and development of calculus, you can not describe motion and it laws  without the tools of calculus. Theory of general relativity was born  from the existing mathematical theory of Riemann geometry, curved surfaces and curvature and the abstract theory of tensors.

Rutherford probably was a bit intoxicated by the love of his field to say those things.  A society exists with out stamp collection and people who do stamp collection have another jobs and life. They do it mainly as a hobby. Physics and other natural sciences do not need mathematics as a hobby or as a stamp collection but they need mathematics as a necessity to explain themselves, without which their existence is indescribable and unknown to humans. 

Dear Maria Bettencourt Pires ,

If we would like to take it positively, we can understand that Rutherford deeply loves his field of interest. We all understand the importance of physics in our daily life. It is good to love our fields of study and work. However, respect other sciences should be always taken into consideration. Let us always remember that our words reflect our characters.

Good morning!

Thank you all for such an interesting debate. 

Yes, Mohammad, we'll take it positively, as usual, because scientific disagreement leeds to positive conclusions.

Oui, Marcel, even a flower can take us to geometrical questions about Nature, without loosing the sense of beauty and that´'s one of the many  wonders of Nature and Science in general.  

(here's a flower for you!)

From the well-known Russian mathematician Vladimir Arnold : 

"Mathematics is a part of physics where experiments are cheap"  

Dear Chris,

Do you mean mental experiments (e.g. à la Einstein) are cheap?

Mind experiments are indeed cheaper than accelerators and can be every bit as enlightening :-))

What Vladimir Arnold was really saying is that theoretical physics and math have become largely interchangeable, a view also taken by very many, such as Monastyrsky at al., and which IMHO is borne out by a large and growing body of evidence

I don't much care for a world in which scientific creation depends on financing.

I totally disagree with the quote. Please remember that mathematics today occupies such an important position in physics that some commentators have argued that it has begun to lead and direct research in physics. Can you imagine physics without mathematics? Rutherford himself was a chemist as well as a nuclear physicist and the irony is of course that when he won the Nobel Prize, it was for chemistry and not physics! I very much doubt Rutherford would say what he said if he was among us today.

Yes, by now, we have all come to the conclusion that Rutherford might not have issued this sentence, at all. ... As absurd as it is, it has proved to entertain many of us, in analysing this issue, and it is great fun and tremendously interesting to read the great comments that this quote has arised. 

(as I said earlier, it was taken from J. B. Birds'quotation http://www.sciencemag.org/content/142/3594/943.2.extract )

I thank you all, and I send my best regards. Maria

So Clifford I have to assume you are one of the 2 people who downvoted my answer above. You say that you can imagine mathematics without physics - there is however a huge body of evidence that pure mathematics leads immediately not only to physical applications (unbeknownst to the developers of such math) but also to physical reality itself.

Stunning instances where pure maths leads seamlessly to totally unforeseen applications in Physics are quoted in 'Modern Mathematics in the Light of the Field Medals' by Michael Monastyrsky (see in particular pp. 101-102). A no less stunning demonstration of how pure math (in that case geometry) can give rise ("ohne Weiteres") to physical realities is given by  Shing-Tung Yau et al.

It is precisely this which leads such physicists as Max Tegmark et al. to posit that material reality is ultimately nothing but a mathematical structure.

So I have to, on the basis of informed opinion, profoundly disagree with your comment above - but I still would never, however, vote it down, because overall progress is always achieved by the confrontation of unlike ideas in the scientific arena.

dear sirs,

Up-voting or down-voting a question or an answer on a debate, is to me, a very positive and democratic atitude, which marks appreciation for issues on debate. RG does well not to reveal the authors of down voting. (I have noticed that someone down voted this very question, and I take it as a mark of interest for the issue in debate, never as an offence...

On the other hand, I have accidentally noticed that I can up vote or down vote comments in other questions, without following them... so we never know.

It is a good procedure, that shows our interest for subjects under debate.

Thank U!

« The man who blames the supreme certainty of mathematics feeds on confusion, and can never silence the contradictions of sophistical sciences which lead to an eternal quackery »

-

«There is no certainty in sciences where one of the mathematical sciences cannot be applied, or which are not in relation with these mathematics. »

Leonardo da Vinci - Notebooks

I don't agree with the argument  that Physics is the only science. Physics is only one branch of Science.  But one thing is sure that the precision, certainty, verifiability,  applicability etc. are entirely dependent on Mathematics. Every branch of Science has its own (scientific) value and Technology is built upon the strong foundation laid by Basic Sciences.

I agree ... with you, dear Sudev.

On my very own behalf, I do love the greatest difficulty and thrill of Medical practice, because Medicine is a most particular field of Science in the sense that it does follow the scientific method of rerasoning but it also strongly depends on the human criativity to develop and explain symptoms and this brings a variability of consequences that don't entirely respond to pragmatic analysis or mathematical predictibility.

This difficulty is what brings thrilling diversity and unconditional devotion and love for the Art of those that practice Medicine.

Science is collecting and organizing knowledge.

Dear good friend, Clifford. 

I can only upvote your contribute once, which is too little, to express how I enjoyed reading you. Thank you.

Congratulations for your beautiful conference paper. Outstanding contribute.

I agree, of course. And I often feel that bias and the tremendous difficulty between our more pragmatic medical theories, and the aplication to the "practical" opposite field of Medical practice and so many human variants to the theoretic field.

These difficulties and the difficulties of research in terms of biological human response are also the utmost resident point of the imense beauty and challenge of medical practice and research.

The only way to cope through the process with average success is to grab hold of our theory and strenghten its knowledge, with update, and then find the way to adapt to the practical reality that also keeps changing and needing permanent update. It is a neverending challenge that adds to the beauty of Medical practice.

I don't believe that there may be loss of scientific method in this quest. (there cannot be loss of pragmatism, when we adapt and update. )

Thank you for your imensely interesting contribute to this question !

« The quick harvest of applied science is the usable process, the medicine, the machine. The shy fruit of pure science is Understanding »

----- LINCOLN BARNETT. Life. Jan. 9, 1950.

My PhD supervisor used to say: "Chemistry is a part of physics that physicists will never understand". The dialectic essence of sentence is also a good answer to Rutherford's statement...

Wow !

Thank you dear Arthur and Erik. This was the second question I posted in RG, shortly after I joined. I thought it would be a good way to start a good debate on Sciences. (Yes, Arthur, I would choose your first option.) I had nearly forgotten it was stil here. You made it reborn again, with fresh sense of interest.

Thank you, dearly. Best regards, Maria.

I think yes, this will ultimately be the case. The problem being "ultimately."

Physics describes mechanisms precisely, within the limits imposed by Heisenberg of course. Other sciences, let's say chemistry, become increasingly close to physics as they progress. I think the problem is that physics has a difficult time with complex and chaotic mechanisms, which other sciences can simply accept. But I would not assume that what appears to be chaotic today will remain that way for all time. Knowledge has a funny habit of explaining what appeared to be magical yesterday.

I have deliver about 5 lectures on where Biology does not obey laws of Methamatics  with evidence.

What to say about mathematics which is called "mother of all sciences" ? Physics requires strong mathematical background. From student's perspective, I would say any body who is good in mathematics will surely be good in all other subject which involves logical thinking.

I do not share this affirmation of Rutherford. Science is wider than physics. Believe in physics alone is to be limited to matter, but for example, the physics is also based on logic and this is inmaterial and is science too. What would physics do without mathematics? Few, but mathematics is not material science usually but it has implications in the matter and in the physical reality.

I do not believe that physic is only the science but I must say that other all subjects including Arts and commerce is science. It depends on our thought process on specific subject. For me, sociology, banking, etc. are SCIENCE. We should interpretate properly those. BTW, for me it is very difficult to define Science.

I, humbly, submit:

The celebrated physicist James Chadwick(  discoverer  of NEUTRON ) was a student of   equally celebrated Ernest  Rutherford( discoverer of  PROTON) who, himself, was the student of J.J.Thomson( discoverer of   ELECTRON).

Perhaps  Rutherford wanted to convey this fact  that whole matter( thus the world) revolves around- WE THREE- THE UNIQUE TRIO in the subject of Physics 

This statement is just a vulgarism. The conventional way for discrimination "it is the science and that isn't the science" lies in the methodology - if there is the scientific method, it is the science, else - it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Dr.Hanno Krieger and my worthy RG colleagues :

[1] Some benefit of doubt regarding the authenticity of this quote may be given to the celebrated Sir Earnest Rutherford – as given below( pls read from the second line) :

Quoted in J. B. Birks, Rutherford at Manchester (1962), 108, without citation.

Webmaster has not been able to find any earlier example of the quote in print. If you know a primary print source, or very early reference to this quote, please contact the Webmaster. If—a strong if—truly a Rutherford quote, and such a snappy one, surely it should have been better documented from decades earlier?

[3]Yet pls find attached all the 21 quotes of one of the all time great scientist .

[4] In addition, pls find 11 quotes from different all time grat scientists about Sir Rutherford.

[5] Pls read quote [2] by Wilhelm Wien

[6]Great men also have the right to cut jokes with one another. Then why not Sir Rutherford ----?

[7] So take it sportingly. Rutherford would deeply love the subject.

It is interesting to read the doubts raised and many interesting answers are being given. It puts one in to a thinking mode.

I agree. "Thinking mode" is a good mode. Thank you ! 

Well it is just to narrow to praise Physics as only science and dismiss all others. Many Physicists do and they look pathetic to me. A field is science if it develops on base of application of scientific method(s).

Dear Alexander.

Yes, and this is probably one of the reasons why I have been developing a special interest for multidisciplinarity, in a World that devotes itself to super technological ultraspecialization... We sometimes tend to forget "the rest"... (hence, my question and proposal of debate)

Thank you

vriendelijke groeten,to you, dear Henk !

I liked the "dialectic" (somewhat ironic) of the phrase cited by Dr. Strub: "Chemistry is a part of physics that physicists will never understand". It reveals much of what differentiates the various sciences. It is, on the same "physical" reality, you can make different interpretations. Every science can be understood as a different interpretation of the same reality. Every science is like a language that has specialized in a different target, and basically attempts to answer some questions that are characteristic of that science.

In front of the Mona Lisa, a chemical observe pigments formed by various mixtures of substances, the historian will see a testimony of Italian humanism, the economist sees a substantial capital ... and that same picture is all that (and more). What varies is the question that each observer want to answer.

Why should be one question more "scientific" tan another one?

I agree that the mathematization allows accuracy in the answers that can not be achieved by other means. But sometimes, the question that you want to respond do not allow a mathematisation. In this case, if you give up that question by considering it "unscientific" (not able to give a quantified response), it happens as when a drunkard looked the keys of his house under the light of a street lamp, although they had dropped to the ground a few meters away ... and when a neighbor asked why he did not look where they had fallen, he replied: "I can not see there!"