I get the feeling that in the last decade or so maybe longer, that the math of sciences is used to postulate and create the 'world' around us to the point that if the equations say so, then we should surly find it so. Is the field moving to a 'cart before the horse' approach? The universe is the way it is, macro to micro to quantum. the math should be a 'map' or field guide based upon what is "verifiable". I could be way off base here but it seems that this is not the case, theorems, postulates and reams of equations to support the theory can be in fact wrong. Is there a bleed over into the classroom? do students get taught something that in fact is wrong? I understand that current technology is limiting what can be done to verify what is 'possible'. It comes across that the research is spent trying to sort thru the 'popular' of the mathematical possibilities instead of looking to see what you really find. Is the data manipulated to support the math or is the math manipulated to support the data? it should be a simple answer but for some reason politics of the research seems to muddle that one. If it's come down to an interpretation of the data, then there is simply not enough data to support anything and to influence the outcome by directing the data is well, wrong. This is only based upon what I've read over the yrs and conversations with some physicists I know who all complain about the 'politics'. seems to be a sadly common thing in the field of science from what I see. Hopefully I'm wrong.