To me, it's all a matter of the empirical data and the math that attempts to model that data. Those two sides of science have continually bootstrapped each oth

To me, it's all a matter of the empirical data and the math that attempts to model that data. Those two sides of science have continually bootstrapped each other to the point we've arrived at today. Quoted from the book in the article: "Our mathematical inventions offer us no shortcut to timeless truth... They never replace the work of scientific discovery and of imagination. The effectiveness of mathematics in natural science is reasonable because it is limited and relative." I'm not sure what the authors mean by this. Are we to ultimately abandon our attempts at a consistent, logical explanation of what we see? If so, that's when we revert to un-scientific and, essentially, religious ways of thinking. I'd argue that the pursuit of a mathematical explanation of observations is the work of scientific imagination. Mathematics is merely the most reliable way we've devised of communicating what we imagine to other people. And sometimes the math, itself, sings to you and that drives advances in understanding that are totally valid.