Abstract
If you teach in a department like mine, the answer to this timeless question may actually carry consequences that seriously affect the resources your program will have available to teach mathematics in the future. In Mainz, no one is likely to protest that mathematics has long been counted as part of the Naturwissenschaften (natural sciences). If it were part of the Geisteswissenschaften (humanities), this would probably have serious budgetary implications. Of course most mathematics departments are now facing a far more immediate and pressing issue, one that can perhaps be boiled down to a different question: is mathematics closer to (a) an art form or (b) a form of computer science? If your students think the answer is certainly (b), then you can dismiss the above query as irrelevant for higher education in the twenty-first century. But since I’m mainly concerned with historical matters, let me turn to the loftier issue raised by the (parenthetical) question in the title above.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alexanderson, G.L. 1987. George Pólya: A Biographical Sketch. In The Pólya Picture Album: Encounters of a Mathematician. Boston: Birkhäuser.
Barrow-Green, June E. 1997. Poincaré and the Three-Body Problem. Providence: American and London Mathematical Societies.
Ben-Menahem, Yemima. 2001. Convention: Poincaré and Some of His Critics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52: 471–513.
Corry, Leo. 2000. The Empiricist Roots of Hilbert’s Axiomatic Approach. In Proof Theory. History and Philosophical Significance, Hendricks, V. F., S. A. Pederson, and K. F. Jorgensen, eds. Synthese Library, vol. 292, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 35–54.
Darrigol, Olivier. 1995. Henri Poincaré’s Criticism of fin de siècle Electrodynamics. Studies in the History of Modern Physics 26 (1): 1–44.
Goldstein, Catherine, and Jim Ritter. 2003. The Varieties of Unity: Sounding Unified Theories, 1920–1930. In Revisiting the Foundations of Relativistic Physics (Festschrift for John Stachel), ed. A. Ashtekar et al., 93–149. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gray, Jeremy J. 2000. The Hilbert Challenge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawking, S.W., and G.F.R. Ellis. 1973. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hendricks, V. F., S. A. Pederson, and K. F. Jorgensen, eds. 2000. Proof Theory. History and Philosophical Significance, Synthese Library, vol. 292, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Mehrtens, Herbert. 1987. Ludwig Bieberbach and “Deutsche Mathematik”. In Studies in the History of Mathematics, ed. Esther R. Phillips, 195–241. Washington, D. C.: Mathematical Association of America.
———. 1990. Moderne-Sprache-Mathematik. Eine Geschichte des Streits um die Grundlagen der Disziplin und des Subjekts formaler Systeme. Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt am Main.
Pais, Abraham. 1982. ‘Subtle is the Lord...’ The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Parshall, Karen, and David E. Rowe. 1994. The Emergence of the American Mathematical Research Community, 1876–1900. J.J. Sylvester, Felix Klein, and E.H. Moore, AMS/LMS History of Mathematics Series. Vol. 8. Providence: American Mathematical Society.
Poincaré, Henri. 1905. Science and Hypothesis. London: Walter Scott; repr. New York: Dover, 1952.
Rowe, David E.. 1989. Felix Klein, David Hilbert, and the Göttingen Mathematical Tradition. In Science in Germany: The Intersection of Institutional and Intellectual Issues, Kathryn Olesko, ed., Osiris, 5, 186–213.
———. 1998. Mathematics in Berlin, 1810–1933. In Mathematics in Berlin, ed. H.G.W. Begehr, H. Koch, J. Kramer, N. Schappacher, and E.-J. Thiele, 9–26. Birkhäuser: Basel.
———. 2000. The Calm before the Storm: Hilbert’s early Views on Foundations. In Proof Theory. History and Philosophical Significance, Hendricks, V. F., S. A. Pederson, and K. F. Jorgensen, eds. Synthese Library, vol. 292, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 55–93.
Schappacher, Norbert. 1991. Edmund Landau’s Göttingen. From the Life and Death of a Great Mathematical Center. Mathematical Intelligencer 13: 12–18.
Schappacher, Norbert and Erhard, Scholz, eds. 1992. Oswald Teichmüller. Leben und Werk, Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung 94: 1–39.
Sieg, Wilfried. 2000. Towards Finitist Proof Theory. In Proof Theory. History and Philosophical Significance, Hendricks, V. F., S. A. Pederson, and K. F. Jorgensen, eds. Synthese Library, vol. 292, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 95–114.
Siegmund-Schultze, Reinhard. 1998. Mathematiker auf der Flucht vor Hitler, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Mathematik. Bd. 10 ed. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg.
Thomas, T.Y. 1938. Recent Trends in Geometry. In Semicentennial Addresses of the American Mathematical Society, 98–135. New York: American Mathematical Society.
van Dalen, Dirk. 1990. The War of the Mice and Frogs, or the Crisis of the Mathematische Annalen. The Mathematical Intelligencer 12 (4): 17–31.
Wilder, Raymond L. 1982. The Mathematical Work of R. L. Moore: Its Background, Nature, and Influence. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 26: 73–97.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rowe, D.E. (2018). Is (Was) Mathematics an Art or a Science?. In: A Richer Picture of Mathematics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67819-1_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67819-1_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67818-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67819-1
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)