user-1: Among the steps needed to attain enlightenment, a practitioner of Buddhism needs to abandon the wrong philosophical views that they acquired due to either wrong teaching or wrong study. In this sense, a practitioner that is less educated need only remove his or her sense of self or ego and the afflictions due to his or her present body. However, a practitioner that is educated would also have to remove the philosophical views acquired through wrong learning.
As paradigms in science have historically been replaced by new paradigms a la Kuhn, this means that science is necessarily a wrong view. For instance, a person living in Newton's time would have studied the absoluteness of time and space, but that view was displaced by Einstein's relativistic paradigm. Whatever science we are learning now, whether it be quantum physics or evolution or species, given the historical record, would be a wrong view and replaced by a more correct paradigm in the future.
Even mathematics have proven to be contradictory through history. At first, set theorists believed in unlimited comprehension till Russell's paradox showed the need for bounded comprehension, in the fateful saga of Russel and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. Pythagoras's theorem was thought to be unconditionally true, but now it is true in only one of the three absolute geometries and physicists now believe our world to be non-Euclidean, in which Pythagoras's theorem fails.
After one is reborn in another world, the physics or mathematics of that world would likely be very different, and one's body would also likely be very different. This probably indicates the impermanent nature of the science and mathematics of our current society. 
Are you also of the opinion that the learning mathematics and science causes a person to acquire wrong views? Would this lead one further away from enlightenment? 

user295: Mathematics, science, logic fall to the field of perception. If you conceptualize things and hold on to them as reality then this can be a hindrance. 
You have to try to see things as they are without the clouding of perception. 
Initially perceptions will be strong, but when perceptions arise you should try to be equanimous without clinging or reacting to the sensations associated with the perception and it's trigger. With this your perception weakens, and ultimately when you realize some form of sainthood, it ceases momentarily.  

user-1: The world is full of ideas. The ideas themselves do not cause wrong view. The solution is not ignorance. Opening one's mind to them, or education, is the opposite of ignorance. The Mind and Life Institute is a living example of doing so by one of Buddhism's most advanced practitioners -  the Dalai Lama.

user471: The Right View of the Dhamma is only related to spiritual liberation i.e. the permanent cessation of suffering. Wrong Views are views that contradict Right View e.g. eternalism, annihilationism etc.
Science and mathematics are neither Wrong View nor Right View. They are simply worldly knowledge unrelated to spiritual liberation.
Lay people are taught to practise the Five Precepts and maintain livelihood in accordance with Right Livelihood for lay persons as taught in AN 5.177. In the sutta quote below, we see the Buddha praising the lay characteristic of being consummate in initiative, for mastering and practising worldly crafts. Lay persons need it for their livelihood.
So, science, mathematics and other worldly knowledge are not wrong view. But of course, any kind of exertion in worldly endeavors can lead one to strengthen their sensual cravings and cravings to become something.

[The Blessed One said:] "There are these four qualities, TigerPaw,
that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life.
Which four? Being consummate in initiative, being consummate in
vigilance, admirable friendship, and maintaining one's livelihood in
tune.
"And what does it mean to be consummate in initiative? There is the
case where a lay person, by whatever occupation he makes his living —
whether by farming or trading or cattle tending or archery or as a
king's man or by any other craft — is clever and untiring at it,
endowed with discrimination in its techniques, enough to arrange and
carry it out. This is called being consummate in initiative.
AN 8.54


user3629: If you are a Tantric Buddhist, you could use Mathematics and Science AS a path to enlightenment.
Also, the word 'wrong' is not relative to some 'right' which is known to Buddhists. The Eightfold path is a conjecture that "seems to work ok", but the Buddha himself said there were innumerable paths besides it.
So, this question could be answered in many ways, from many different viewpoints. It all depends on how you have decided to practice.
Buddhism is too large a viewpoint to answer this question.. you need to narrow it to what vehicle, and even flavor, of Buddhism as it is practiced in the world to get a meaningful answer.
EDIT: It seems that many here are pointing out that studying a difficult subject outside of Buddhism can lead to pride or distraction or attachment. I agree.
The broad point I am trying to make is that this is not any different than being prideful in anything, and does not in itself constitute a danger to your path, any more than being prideful in your appearance, strength, or taste in wine would be. In this way, there is no difference between Math and Literature, or between Physics and Dharma Studies. Thus, I maintain that there is no area of knowledge that will lead you to being more prone to pride, as long as you maintain your path while learning it.

user43: Study of mathematics or science in and of itself is orthogonal to practice of Buddha-Dharma. But a side effect of study can often be a sense of pride based on the false conviction that one now knows everything there is to know about the way the world operates. This could be a serious barrier for entry into Buddhism and a source of misinterpretation of what Buddhism is actually about.

user37: If you are looking for enlightenment you should be concerned of not being attached to these studies, or averse to what you disagree. The same fits to Buddhism itself, you should't become absorbed, or obsessed, to the Dharma.
All philosophies are mental phenomena, they aren't either good or bad in themselves. But they can hinder your search for enlightenment if you are too concerned about them.
Math and science share a side of problem elaboration and solving. So it would contradict Buddhism if you enjoy or think it is meaningful to be worried about all those problems. Over-thinking about anything and having a heavy attitude over theories or facts are opposite to the practice of meditation.
The point of meditation is to not being absorbed to mental elaborations. So there is no sense to think all over a sitting session. Then this extends to daily life, there is no sense to have a sharp and clear mind when meditating and daydream in the rest of the time.
For short, the point isn't what phenomena you engage, but it's how you engage to phenomena. If you can elaborate on any philosophy in a detached way it wouldn't be a problem at all. So the practice would be to think while being present and aware. (yes, this one is quite paradoxical)

-1: <p>Among the steps needed to attain enlightenment, a practitioner of Buddhism needs to abandon the wrong philosophical views that they acquired due to either wrong teaching or wrong study. In this sense, a practitioner that is less educated need only remove his or her sense of self or ego and the afflictions due to his or her present body. However, a practitioner that is educated would also have to remove the philosophical views acquired through wrong learning.</p>

<p>As paradigms in science have historically been replaced by new paradigms <em>a la</em> Kuhn, this means that science is necessarily a wrong view. For instance, a person living in Newton's time would have studied the absoluteness of time and space, but that view was displaced by Einstein's relativistic paradigm. Whatever science we are learning now, whether it be quantum physics or evolution or species, given the historical record, would be a wrong view and replaced by a more correct paradigm in the future.</p>

<p>Even mathematics have proven to be contradictory through history. At first, set theorists believed in unlimited comprehension till Russell's paradox showed the need for bounded comprehension, in the fateful saga of Russel and Whitehead's <em>Principia Mathematica</em>. Pythagoras's theorem was thought to be unconditionally true, but now it is true in only one of the three absolute geometries and physicists now believe our world to be non-Euclidean, in which Pythagoras's theorem fails.</p>

<p>After one is reborn in another world, the physics or mathematics of that world would likely be very different, and one's body would also likely be very different. This probably indicates the impermanent nature of the science and mathematics of our current society. </p>

<p>Are you also of the opinion that the learning mathematics and science causes a person to acquire wrong views? Would this lead one further away from enlightenment? </p>
 295: <p>Mathematics, science, logic fall to the field of perception. If you conceptualize things and hold on to them as reality then this can be a hindrance. </p>

<p>You have to try to see things as they are without the clouding of perception. </p>

<p>Initially perceptions will be strong, but when perceptions arise you should try to be equanimous without clinging or reacting to the sensations associated with the perception and it's trigger. With this your perception weakens, and ultimately when you realize some form of sainthood, it ceases momentarily.  </p>
 -1: <p>The world is full of ideas. The ideas themselves do not cause wrong view. The solution is not ignorance. Opening one's mind to them, or education, is the opposite of ignorance. The <a href="https://www.mindandlife.org/mission/" rel="nofollow">Mind and Life Institute</a> is a living example of doing so by one of Buddhism's most advanced practitioners -  the Dalai Lama.</p>
 471: <p>The Right View of the Dhamma is only related to spiritual liberation i.e. the permanent cessation of suffering. Wrong Views are views that contradict Right View e.g. eternalism, annihilationism etc.</p>
<p>Science and mathematics are neither Wrong View nor Right View. They are simply worldly knowledge unrelated to spiritual liberation.</p>
<p>Lay people are taught to practise the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Five Precepts</a> and maintain livelihood in accordance with Right Livelihood for lay persons as taught in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 5.177</a>. In the sutta quote below, we see the Buddha praising the lay characteristic of being consummate in initiative, for mastering and practising worldly crafts. Lay persons need it for their livelihood.</p>
<p>So, science, mathematics and other worldly knowledge are not wrong view. But of course, any kind of exertion in worldly endeavors can lead one to strengthen their sensual cravings and cravings to become something.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[The Blessed One said:] &quot;There are these four qualities, TigerPaw,
that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life.
Which four? Being consummate in initiative, being consummate in
vigilance, admirable friendship, and maintaining one's livelihood in
tune.</p>
<p>&quot;And what does it mean to be consummate in initiative? There is the
case where a lay person, by whatever occupation he makes his living —
whether by farming or trading or cattle tending or archery or as a
king's man or by any other craft — is clever and untiring at it,
endowed with discrimination in its techniques, enough to arrange and
carry it out. This is called being consummate in initiative.<br />
<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AN 8.54</a></p>
</blockquote>
 3629: <p>If you are a Tantric Buddhist, you could use Mathematics and Science AS a path to enlightenment.</p>

<p>Also, the word 'wrong' is not relative to some 'right' which is known to Buddhists. The Eightfold path is a conjecture that "seems to work ok", but the Buddha himself said there were innumerable paths besides it.</p>

<p>So, this question could be answered in many ways, from many different viewpoints. It all depends on how you have decided to practice.</p>

<p>Buddhism is too large a viewpoint to answer this question.. you need to narrow it to what vehicle, and even flavor, of Buddhism as it is practiced in the world to get a meaningful answer.</p>

<p>EDIT: It seems that many here are pointing out that studying a difficult subject outside of Buddhism can lead to pride or distraction or attachment. I agree.</p>

<p>The broad point I am trying to make is that this is not any different than being prideful in anything, and does not in itself constitute a danger to your path, any more than being prideful in your appearance, strength, or taste in wine would be. In this way, there is no difference between Math and Literature, or between Physics and Dharma Studies. Thus, I maintain that there is no area of knowledge that will lead you to being more prone to pride, <strong>as long as you maintain your path while learning it</strong>.</p>
 43: <p>Study of mathematics or science in and of itself is orthogonal to practice of Buddha-Dharma. But a side effect of study can often be a sense of pride based on the false conviction that one now knows everything there is to know about the way the world operates. This could be a serious barrier for entry into Buddhism and a source of misinterpretation of what Buddhism is actually about.</p>
 37: <p>If you are looking for enlightenment you should be concerned of not being attached to these studies, or averse to what you disagree. The same fits to Buddhism itself, you should't become absorbed, or obsessed, to the Dharma.</p>

<p>All philosophies are mental phenomena, <em>they aren't either good or bad in themselves</em>. But they can hinder your search for enlightenment if you are too concerned about them.</p>

<p>Math and science share a side of problem elaboration and solving. So it would contradict Buddhism if you enjoy or think it is meaningful to be worried about all those problems. Over-thinking about anything and having a heavy attitude over theories or facts are opposite to the practice of meditation.</p>

<p>The point of meditation is to not being absorbed to mental elaborations. So there is no sense to think all over a sitting session. Then this extends to daily life, <em>there is no sense to have a sharp and clear mind when meditating and daydream in the rest of the time</em>.</p>

<p>For short, the point <strong>isn't what</strong> phenomena you engage, but it's <strong>how you engage</strong> to phenomena. If you can elaborate on any philosophy in a detached way it wouldn't be a problem at all. So the practice would be to <em>think while being present and aware</em>. (yes, this one is quite paradoxical)</p>
