[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:09:07 +0200 Andreas Johansson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> On 6/23/06, Phil Bigelow <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:23:56 +0200 Andreas Johansson
> > writes:
> > > On 6/23/06, Phil Bigelow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The construction, testing, and potential falsification of
> > > mathematical
> > > > theorems and mathematical proofs follows the scientific
> method, so
> > > I
> > > > don't see why it isn't a science, too.
> > >
> > > Except theorems aren't constructed, tested and falsified that
> > > A
> > > theorem isn't a best explanation of data; it's something
> > > given
> > > the axioms, is *true*.
> > Have mathematical theorems ever been declared to be "true", but
> > falsified
> Well, people have certainly asserted as theorems things that have
> subsequently be shown to be wrong, but according to standard
> interpretation this means they never were theorems.
> > or put into a category of uncertainty by either another theorem
> If a theorem contradicts another, you don't get either or both put
> into uncertainty - the whole structure comes crashing down, because
> the axioms are inconsistent with one another.
That sounds like the scientific method to me. Tell me where I am wrong.