Hi Luis,

>>>"H: I think you miss the point..." L: Again, it is not your point we are debating. It is mine. Once you begin a source post and posit an argument within it you can accurately portray your assertions as 'the point.' NOT TRUE! The opposite is the case here. Your approach, from what I can tell so far, is to use a set of realist assumptions of truth to say that realist assumptions of mathematics is not attainable. However, you are perhaps contradicting your very premise of using a set of realist assumptions! First, you need to acknowledge your assumptions and apply them consistently in your antirealism.

L: 'Precisely!'

---> As I said, you have missed the point. Unfortunately you won't allow me to have a point because this is your thread (*smile*).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>(2112) I enjoy philosophy, but launching into it every time we discuss science "leads (us) to a logical dead end, at which point one must either (a) believe without further probing, or (b) accept that we cannot know 'meaning' without forsaking the very tentative nature scientific inquiry requires" (quoted from this thread's original post).>I hope you can resolve what it is 'in between' that you do not agree with. Forcing someone else's idea that 'there are no electrons' upon my views, or confusing agnosticism with denial ("if we denied sense data entirely, then we should be extreme skeptics and say that we assume nothing about the world") won't hack it.>Nevertheless, it is 'satisfactorily' obvious that we agree (2112) is the case. Indeed, we have fashioned a cruelly protracted archetype of my initial assertion.