How do we integrate empirical data into Bp&p? On Saturday, June 1, 2013 3:41:56 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote: > > Russell wrote: > *"...When it comes to Bp & p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it > captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed > to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. > But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific knowledge, > which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. > And that's about where I left it - years ago.* > *..."* > Interesting difference between 'scientific' and 'mathematical' > (see the Nobel Prize distinction) - also in falsifiability, that does not > automatically escape the agnostic questioning about the circumstances of > the falsifying and the original images. Same difficulty as in judging > "proof". > "Scientific knowledge" indeed is part of a belief system. In conventional > sciences we THINK we know, in math we assume > (apologies, Bruno). > John M > * > * > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Russell Standish > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:04:13PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: >> > You mean unprovable? I get confused because it seems that you >> > sometimes use Bp to mean "proves p" and sometimes "believes p" >> > >> >> To a mathematician, belief and proof are the same thing. I believe in >> this theorem because I can prove it. If I can't prove it, then I don't >> believe it - it is merely a conjecture. >> >> In modal logic, the operator B captures both proof and supposedly >> belief. Obviously it captures a mathematician's notion of belief - >> whether that extends to a scientists notion of belief, or a >> Christian's notion is another matter entirely. >> >> When it comes to Bp & p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see >> it captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as >> opposed to true conjectures, say, which aren't knowledge. >> >> But I am vaguely sceptical it captures the notion of scientific >> knowledge, which has more to do with falsifiability, than with proof. >> >> And that's about where I left it - years ago. >> >> Cheers >> >> -- >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >> Principal, High Performance Coders >> Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected]<javascript:> >> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
