Even if a universal mathematical truth holds necessarily, its explanatory relevance to a particular instance requires a non-deductive relevance relation that Lange never specifies.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Marc Lange(as referenced in philosophy of science): A contemporary philosopher of science who has written extensively about how mathematical truths explain physical phenomena in the real world.
Necessarily: "Necessarily" means something must be true in all possible situations—it's not just true right now, but couldn't be false under any circumstances. For example, "2+2=4 necessarily" means there's no possible way 2+2 could equal anything other than 4. This contrasts with "contingently" true facts, like "it's raining today," which happen to be true but could have been false.
explanatory relevance(Distinguished from mere statistical relevance across an undifferentiated population; requires partitioning into homogeneous reference classes (e.g., by sex)): A factor is explanatorily relevant to an outcome within a subpopulation when it is statistically relevant to that outcome within that subpopulation
non-deductive relevance relation(as used in logic and philosophy of science)

Based on where you are in your exploration