That's just false. What physicists (and engineers, etc) are doing is also math and it's way more useful and insightful.. and (imo) the world would be a better place if that's what everyone else was also learning in college. The idea that math is only about rigor isn't intrinsic; it's a historical accident that people seem to not realize is optional. It is also about understanding things and being able to wield concepts to accomplish goals or convey understanding to others.
Novelists and lawyers both do writing, but I wouldn't call their output the same thing. You might call legal writing more useful or novelists more insightful, but that's a matter of opinion. One is not intrinsically more valuable than the other.
> The idea that math is only about rigor isn't intrinsic; it's a historical accident that people seem to not realize is optional
I mean, it is by definition. To a mathematician, doing calculations is not mathematics, no more than spelling is doing poetry. Which is not to say that doing calculations is without value! I think what we have here is (ironically) an unrigorous definition.
When schools focus on only teaching the most rigorous and abstract definition of math, at the cost of teaching students how to apply math to real-world problems, the result is a lot of students who can do neither.
Likewise, when schools focus only on teaching literature by the most artistic definition, at the cost of teaching them basic day-to-day reading and writing skills, the result is a lot of students who can do neither.
Let's treat rigorous math and lofty literature like the specialized skills that they are, and offer them to students who show particular interest in those areas. For the bulk of students, let's teach them skills that will be useful and relevant.
I hope you realize that physics isn't about calculations either? You can put numbers or types in the equations, just like you can put numbers or types in the expressions or results you get in math.
