[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

*To*: dinosaur@usc.edu*Subject*: Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response*From*: Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>*Date*: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:46:32 +0000 (pd)*Reply-to*: bigelowp@juno.com*Sender*: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:09:07 +0200 Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com> writes: > On 6/23/06, Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:23:56 +0200 Andreas Johansson > <andreasj@gmail.com> > > writes: > > > On 6/23/06, Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> 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 > way. > > > A > > > theorem isn't a best explanation of data; it's something > that's, > > > given > > > the axioms, is *true*. > > > > > > Have mathematical theorems ever been declared to be "true", but > later > > 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. <pb> --

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response***From:*Graydon <oak@uniserve.com>

**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response***From:*Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Next by Date:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Previous by thread:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Next by thread:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Indexes: