Re: Polanyi on science (was Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID)

From: Don Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Wed Dec 03 2008 - 14:54:39 EST

Yes, George is correct. But consistency proofs are just work in progress
-- they can be regarded as forming parts of incomplete proofs of
bigger theorems. So Don W. is correct in that mathematicians are not
satisfied with consistency-- that is just a first step towards proof.
Don N.

George Murphy wrote:
> I googled mathematics + "consistency proof" & got 2130 hits. Proof &
> consistency aren't alternatives - in some situations one wants to
> prove that 2 (or >2) propositions can be true together, which of
> course isn't the same as saying that either one _is_ true.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Don Winterstein <mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> *To:* D. F. Siemens, Jr. <mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> *Cc:* asa <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 03, 2008 9:46 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Polanyi on science (was Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID)
>
> Hmm. Your use of "consistency" comes as such a surprise I need
> to pursue this just a bit further. As an ex-physicist I've taken
> lots of math courses and even an upper-level philosophy course or
> two (albeit in the distant past). I yield to you on usage in
> philosophy, but I don't recall a mathematician ever using
> "consistency" as a math term. With powerful words like proof,
> equality and identity, why would they need, and where would they
> use, "consistency"?
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* D. F. Siemens, Jr. <mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
> *To:* dfwinterstein@msn.com <mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 02, 2008 7:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Polanyi on science (was Re: [asa] C.S. Lewis on ID)
>
> Don.
> You illustrate an interesting point of usage. To a
> philosopher, logician or mathematician, consistency is the
> ultimate test. Inconsistency is the immediate source of what
> the medievals discovered, /consequentia mirabilis/, the fact
> that an inconsistency proves everything. This is why a
> /reductio ad absurdum/ has to be held within tight control. It
> can run only from the assumed item to be proved false to the
> contradiction and negation of the assumption.
>
> Now consider two crooks, one of whom has robbed a bank one
> morning. A reports that he was with B all that morning in B's
> parents' home, playing cards. B confirms A's story.
> Confirmation applies equally to true, false and statements
> whose status is unclear.
>
>
> From: "Don Winterstein" dfwinterstein@msn.com
> <mailto:dfwinterstein@msn.com>
>
> "Consistent with" to me is a looser term than "confirm,"
> whereas for you it seems to be a stricter term. To me, as
> applied to experimental data, it implies that, while results
> are not identical, as they almost never are, they are
> within an acceptable range for the particular kind of
> measurement. I can understand also your usage of "confirm;"
> so if we're writing for journals, we need first off to find
> out how the editors use the words!
>
> But "consistent with" is definitely more appropriate than
> "confirm" when talking about whether or not experimental
> results support theory, because to confirm a theory is to say
> it's the final word, which we aren't allowed do. I suspect
> this usage for theory had a decisive influence on my usage for
> experiments.
>
> Of course, that's how I see it; but because of the
> "flexibility of language," you may see the word
> meanings differently here also.
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 3 14:55:59 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 03 2008 - 14:55:59 EST