No abstract

Alan Baker argues that mathematical objects play an indispensable explanatory role in science. There are several examples cited in the literature as solid candidates for such a role. We discuss two such examples and show that they are very different in their strength and (im)perfection, although both are recognized by the scientific community as examples of the best scientific explanations of particular phenomena. More specifically, it will be shown that the explanation of the cicada case has serious shortcomings compared with the explanation of the case of Königsberg's bridges. We will argue that the latter is a perfectly reliable scientific explanation that employs mathematical reasoning whereas the former is not.

No abstract

No abstract

Ever since its beginnings, mathematics has occupied a special position among all sciences, natural, as well as social sciences and humanities. It has not only provided a role model in terms of methodology, particularly when it comes to natural sciences, but other sciences have always relied on mathematics extensively both in their development and for solving various open questions. The beginning of the 21st century foregrounded the issue of the so-called explanatory role of mathematics in science. However, the reference literature features only a few examples as illustration of this role. This paper aims at showing that those examples, even though they are used for illustrating precisely the same purpose, also illustrate various explanatory scopes which mathematical tools can reach within a scientific explanation. Some of these examples also show how mathematics, unfortunately, provides false credibility to scientific explanations.