On Monday, January 7, 2013 6:49:29 AM UTC-8, Robin wrote: > On 07/01/2013 13:50, david petry ranted: > > > > > The notion of falsifiability, which is the cornerstone of science, > > > can be formalized in such a way that it can be made the cornerstone > > > of mathematics, and it is eminently reasonable to do so; if we don't > > > accept falsifiability as part of the underlying logic of our > > > mathematics, > > > > Falsifiability, in the guise of reductio ad absurdum > > *is* a principle of mathematics.
When in doubt, use Wikipedia.
> As no contradiction > > in ZFC has been found, we can continue to work within it
Certainly you can continue to play the game of ZFC.
> > then our mathematics is deficient as a language for > > > science. > > > > It is not the purpose of mathematics to be a "logic for science".
Really? Give me a clue here. What *serious* purpose does mathematics have other than to serve as a formalization of our understanding of quantitative reasoning.
> > ZFC is crackpot mathematics. > > > > Please provide a contradiction in ZFC, or else hold your peace.
Platonism is not a universally accepted principle.