Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: robert j. kolker (nowhere_at_nowhere.net)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
- In reply to: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:54:22 -0500
Jason wrote:
>
> The computer literally did the colouring of maps and counting of the colours.
> It was accepted after they tried it on other computers with different
> programmes. But again, this is inductive evidence. That it is a legitimate
> proof is controversial.
Any indicative proof (and that is all that is ever printed in the
journals) has a empirical aspect to it. Consider Wile's proof of FLT. It
took a committee of experts to go over it with a fine tooth comb (or the
mental equivalent of one) and the first attempt was flaws. In the second
attempt by Wile's the no error was found (which does not prove
conclusively that it is error free). And that is why it is generally
accepted by the community of working mathematicians. It was declared a
kosher proof by a committee of rabbis in a manner of speaking.
Bob Kolker
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
- In reply to: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Reply: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
