Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]


William of Ockham wrote:
david petry wrote:

What I have been suggesting is that mathematics can be viewed as a
science which makes falsifiable predictions. You are certainly free to
speculate about the existence of things lying beyond the world we
observe, but, importantly, you really have no right to demand that I or
anyone else accept your insights about such things.

I am not demanding that anyone accept any insight. The question is,
why we should accept your speculation that only falsifiable predictions
are meaningful. How do you know this is true? What evidence is it
based on? How would I falsify it?

If we are going to communicate, we have to agree on the ground rules.
What I have been arguing for are things that I consider to be part of
the ground rules essential for communication. The idea that only
falsifiable predictions are meaningful is definitional. As I see it, if
you argue against that, you are merely playing word games.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
    ... If we are going to communicate, we have to agree on the ground rules. ... you are merely playing word games. ... only falsifiable predictions are meaningful. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
    ... If we are going to communicate, we have to agree on the ground rules. ... you are merely playing word games. ... only falsifiable predictions are meaningful. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
    ... speculate about the existence of things lying beyond the world we ... observe, but, importantly, you really have no right to demand that I or ... anyone else accept your insights about such things. ... why we should accept your speculation that only falsifiable predictions ...
    (sci.logic)