On Monday, April 1, 2013 1:55:58 PM UTC-7, Dan wrote: > On Apr 1, 11:43 pm, david petry <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com> > wrote:
> > Falsifiability is part of our natural thinking processes even if we don't always recognize it as such. It's already part of applied mathematics, even if applied mathematics has never been fully formalized. If the mathematicians involved in the debate over the foundations of mathematics that occurred in the early part of the twentieth century had taken the notion of falsifiability into consideration, it's very likely the debate would have been resolved in favor of falsifiability and against Cantorian set theory.
> Have you paid no attention? Falsifiability was never a concern even > before Cantorian Set theory , nor can it ever be a concern outside the > scientist's modus operandi , into mathematics by itself, without the > Physical world on which to perform experiments . Going by your > 'operational' usage of falsifiability, I would classify it as "not > even wrong" , to use an expression preferred by scientist .
There's nothing I could say that I have not already said right here in this discussion, so I guess the discussion is over.
> "A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."