Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34837542›Full record

ArticleBiological cybernetics2021

Mathematization of nature: how it is done.

J Leo van Hemmen

Open access · hybridAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Biological cybernetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

J Leo van HemmenPhysik Department T35, Technische Universität München, 85747, Garching bei München, Germany. lvh@tum.de.
Technical University of Munich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Natural phenomena can be quantitatively described by means of mathematics, which is actually the only way of doing so. Physics is a convincing example of the mathematization of nature. This paper gives an answer to the question of how mathematization of nature is done and illustrates the answer. Here nature is to be taken in a wide sense, being a substantial object of study in, among others, large domains of biology, such as epidemiology and neurobiology, chemistry, and physics, the most outspoken example. It is argued that mathematization of natural phenomena needs appropriate core concepts that are intimately connected with the phenomena one wants to describe and explain mathematically. Second, there is a scale on and not beyond which a specific description holds. Different scales allow for different conceptual and mathematical descriptions. This is the scaling hypothesis, which has meanwhile been confirmed on many occasions. Furthermore, a mathematical description can, as in physics, but need not be universally valid, as in biology. Finally, the history of science shows that only an intensive gauging of theory, i.e., mathematical description, by experiment leads to progress. That is, appropriate core concepts and appropriate scales are a necessary condition for mathematizing nature, and so is its verification by experiment.

Indexed as

NeurobiologyPhysicsMathematicsCore conceptsMathematizationScalesScaling hypothesis

Identifiers

PMID34837542
PMCPMC8642347
OpenAlexW3216431245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.