Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
From: Jason (jasonstevensNOSPAM_at_free.net.nz)
Date: 01/25/05
- Next message: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Jason: "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 11:13:58 +1300
> > Formal proof is derivation from the system's axioms, while formal
justification
> > is what exactly? It seems you're trading on an ambiguity in the word
'formal'.
>
> In the real world, "proofs" given in the math journals are in reality
> outlines of how one would go about constructing a real honest to God
> formal proof. The reasons why complete formal proofs are not giveen are:
>
> 1. The detail is boring to the point of being soporific.
>
> 2. The size of a typical monthly publication would expand to several
> Manhattan Yellow Page Directory sized publication. A sad waste of both
> wood and time.
If something cannot be proven formally by incompleteness, but it can be proven
empirically since maths does seem to overlap the world, then it is reasonable
that proof by empirical means should be used and a new axiom added.
- Next message: Jason: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Jason: "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
|