Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- From: "William of Ockham" <d3uckner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Jun 2006 23:00:45 -0700
david petry wrote:
So by definition, only falsifiable predictions are meaningful. Is this
a definition of the word 'meaningful'?
From a scientific point of view, yes, it's part of the definition.
Then of course you win the argument, if you are allowed to define the
terms of the conclusion in any way you wish. What if I object that
this is not what 'meaningful' means?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- From: david petry
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- References:
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- From: david petry
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- From: david petry
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- From: William of Ockham
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- From: david petry
- Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- Prev by Date: Re: Validity of formulas with a certain prefix
- Next by Date: Re: Is Goedel's formula true?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- Next by thread: Re: Why? [was Re: Cantor`s powerset theorem is false?]
- Index(es):