Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Jason (jasonstevensNOSPAM_at_free.net.nz)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: P.Comm: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 10:07:57 +1300
> > 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.
Absolutely. This idea can be stretched like glad-wrap over humans as well. It
shows how thin the idea of proof can be at times. Rather than proof being this
mathematical ideal, in reality it is just what is socially accepted for the
moment. Maths has a long history of proofs that were not proofs.
- Next message: P.Comm: "Re: Racial Differences in Intelligence"
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
