Re: "Godel got it all wrong"

"Peter_Smith" <ps218@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

I can see how people can get confused about the supposed implications
of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem. What fazes me is the
seemingly perennial temptation to say that there is something wrong
with the Theorem itself. (When I was editing one of the philosophy
journals for twelve years, there'd be another "refutation" submitted
every four or five months.) The really odd thing is that the Theorem is
in fact *easy*.

Of course, if you want to prove it Gödel's way (and there's other ways
to choose from), there's work to be done, proving that primitive
recursive functions are representable in Peano Arithmetic (and it
requires a pretty bit of trickery with beta-functions to do that). But
once the spade-work is over, the Theorem is indeed easily demonstrated.
Which is not to belittle Gödel's achievement of course. As Kreisel
says in his memoir, it was in fact very important to Gödel that the
theorem was straightforward, *almost* obvious once one had got one's
head around the philosophical point that truth and provability in this
or that formal system are different concepts.

So why, I wonder, do people still get a bee in their bonnet about
this?! Very puzzling.

I'm not surprised that Goedel's theorem faces animosity. The setting
is technical and takes some time to understand. And there are many
misinterpretations of Goedel's theorem in the literature. Folks may
be reacting to parodies of the theorem and its consequences when they
decide that it's wrong.

If Cantor's theorem faces daily "refutations", I don't see why I'd be
surprised that Goedel's theorem does too.

Did you receive any papers refuting Cantor's theorem at that journal?
Or is that activity limited to Usenet and other venues?

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"Knowing about logic is not the same as being in touch with reality."
-- David Kastrup
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: editorial policy question
    ... I question strongly that "most of the better journals use double-blind ... refereeing" (if "better journals" refers to mathematics journals). ... This can also be a problem in philosophy, of course, but in general, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
    ... Not even Philosophy - without definitions, ... that his attempt at a refutation by construction of a counter-example ... to Cantor's proof was, itself, an example of "infinitary reasoning"; ... which is consistent with his argument being correct. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Zenkins paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)
    ... Not even Philosophy - without definitions, ... that his attempt at a refutation by construction of a counter-example ... to Cantor's proof was, itself, an example of "infinitary reasoning"; ... which is consistent with his argument being correct. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: DIs Bibliography of Peer-Reviews & Peer-Edited Publications...
    ... >> in scientific journals, and most of those claims were addressed here ... Philosophy of science should be relevant to science but every philosophy ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Godel got it all wrong"
    ... Frederick Williams wrote: ... ...When I was editing one of the philosophy ... journals for twelve years... ...
    (sci.logic)