I agree with the article, I think? <TLDR> The only difference between math and English, or any other language, is a degree of precision. In math, the symbols

I agree with the article, I think? <TLDR> The only difference between math and English, or any other language, is a degree of precision. In math, the symbols and connotations are more refined, but the results are still interpreted. There is no absolute truth. Mathematical truth is still defined by agreement among leading scholars that something is correct. Physical truth in the sciences also depends upon agreement. In the ephemeral world of communication, words and their meanings are relevant only to our own perception. We can try to better agree upon the starting ground, the definitions, but definitions still depend upon the flimsy symbols and what they signify in each person’s mind. There is no perfect line. I enjoy math as a dilettante communicator. And while math can greatly enhance the precision of our communications, it can also be used to deceive. My non-schizoid self agrees that the probability of pulling the “Ace of Spades” from a deck of cards is 1 in 52, but this depends upon our understanding of the definitions, our belief that the logic of probability is reasonable, and our intuition that the results agree with the world we perceive. My skeptic self, however, disbelieves that the esoteric formulas of macroeconomics accurately predict the world around us. How much "advanced math" is being conducted at banks, universities, and government institutions in pursuit of the illusory goal of modeling the economy? This math serves the purpose of providing the illusion of understanding, appropriate for politicians justifying desired actions, bankers selling products, and economics professors advancing careers. In my perception of reality, this math too often blows up when events it describes as one in a trillion come to fruition on a much more frequent basis. While I believe understanding math can prove beneficial to any endeavor that is trying to more precisely communicate a perception of the world, that mathematical understanding does not trump the necessity of generating agreement upon the definitions and the results. With little math but plenty of logic, Darwin was able to generate an insight into the world with which many people agree (including myself). Yet with plenty of math and very little logic, many areas of "science" travel down rabbit hole after rabbit hole where the community coalesces in complicated group think, with insights that fail to agree with most peoples' perception of reality, but results that are nonetheless justified as correct based upon the "math." In the end, math is a method of communication, often more precise than other languages, but still transitory in its ability to convey meaning and generate agreement. It is a helpful tool but not an indispensable instrument to science. But I guess this all depends upon the definition of science. </QED>