Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response

[Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:09:07 +0200 Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com>
writes:
> On 6/23/06, Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:23:56 +0200 Andreas Johansson 
> <andreasj@gmail.com>
> > writes:
> > > On 6/23/06, Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The construction, testing, and potential falsification of
> > > mathematical
> > > > theorems and mathematical proofs follows the scientific 
> method, so
> > > I
> > > > don't see why it isn't a science, too.
> > >
> > > Except theorems aren't constructed, tested and falsified that 
> way.
> > > A
> > > theorem isn't a best explanation of data; it's something 
> that's,
> > > given
> > > the axioms, is *true*.
> >
> >
> > Have mathematical theorems ever been declared to be "true", but 
> later
> > falsified
> 
> Well, people have certainly asserted as theorems things that have
> subsequently be shown to be wrong, but according to standard
> interpretation this means they never were theorems.
> 
> > or put into a category of uncertainty by either another theorem
> 
> If a theorem contradicts another, you don't get either or both put
> into uncertainty - the whole structure comes crashing down, because
> the axioms are inconsistent with one another.


That sounds like the scientific method to me.  Tell me where I am wrong.

<pb>
--