On Saturday, March 30, 2013 5:33:12 AM UTC-7, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> david petry <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Here's what I actually believe: Falsifiability, which is the > > cornerstone of scientific reasoning, can be formalized in such a way > > that it can serve as the cornerstone of mathematical reasoning. And > > in fact, it's already part of the reasoning used by applied > > mathematicians; ZFC, which is not compatible with falsifiability, is > > not a formalization of the mathematical reasoning used in applied > > mathematics. Also, Godel's proof is not compatible with > > falsifiability.
> You say that falsifiability is "already part of the reasoning used by > applied mathematicians."
> What do you mean?
Applied mathematicians know they have to produce something that is of use to the scientists, which does imply that they are taking falsifiability into consideration.