Math is the basis for all of physics. Physics is the basis for all of chemistry. Biology is the basis for all of psychology. And psychology is the basis for all of sociology. I would further argue that sociology is the basis for other social sciences (i.e. linguistics, economics, political science). And these fields are the bases for other fields not necessarily science-oriented (i.e. English, cultural studies, public administration).
Let's examine this in further detail. In order for an official to develop policy, they must first understand political processes. In order to understand political behavior, one must comprehend social interactions. In order to comprehend social mechanisms, you must understand mental behavior. In order to understand the way the mental functions, it is necessary to discern how cells form the structure of the brain. In order to discern the nature of cells, one must comprehend how atoms bond to form cells. In order to comprehend covalent bonding in atoms, one must consider the nature of subatomic particles. And in order to consider such concepts as the charge of a proton, one must have the necessary mathematical knowledge. So if we follow this train of logic, in order to develop effective public policy, one must have a decent quantitative background. No matter what path you take, it all boils down to math in the end.
There are two main suppositions that I have drawn from this. The first is that with the proper quantitative training, one can have the basis with which to enter all other fields of science. With a strong mathematical foundation, you would be surprised how simple other areas of study become. The other conjecture that I propose is that the social sciences are inherently more complex than the natural sciences. Mathematicians and scientists often take pride in their work being more difficult than those in the humanities, and to an extent this is probably true. But the fact of the matter remains that the social sciences require a much greater depth of knowledge. Social scientists too often do not take a multidisciplinary approach to their research. Sure, there are such fields as econophysics and complexity science, but too often are the foundations to social science ignored.
If math is the purest of all sciences, can we develop a foundation to it? Numbers are the most fundamental of all units in mathematics, but how do we define a number? The roots of numbers are found in a set of axioms developed by Giuseppe Peano. These postulates cannot be proven, but seen rather as self-evident. There are several theories (i.e. platonism, formalism, intuitionism) out there to answer the foundational question, each with their own positives and drawbacks. But in the end, all of human understanding is rooted in mathematics.
In school, many students gain a distaste for math. They do not see its relevance and would rather not learn it. This is a serious flaw in our educational system. Students need to be taught the practical aspect of math from the get-go. It is from math that one can derive all learning from. Our science curriculum is also seriously flawed. Most high schools teach biology first, then chemistry, then physics. This should be reversed. One cannot understand chemistry without physics, and one cannot understand biology without chemistry.The order exists because students often lack the quantitative background to grasp physics in their freshman year of high school. But if we adapt our mathematical curriculum so that we do teach more advanced mathematics at an earlier stage, this will not be a problem. Far too much time is spent repeating basic mathematical concepts when the class could be moving forward (I myself recall being bored to death with four years of algebra from 6th-9th grade). If we adapt the hierarchy of science into our educational system, our students will undergo a more natural progression in their learning. After all, in the end, everything is just applied math.
