Perhaps the only issue that I would have preferred that you comment was on my 'test' for you to create theorems from the undefined terms and axioms that I gave. Therein lies my main emphasis to you and Dick. If mathematics is not really a 'from scratch' enterprise as I suggest, then the question of what separates mathematics from science is a pseudo one. In other words, it is not feasible to derive a mathematical approach (a view similar to Dick's approach) or logical approach (a very similar to Bertrand Russell's symbolic logic approach) that is any more fundamental or less prone to error than science itself. This is where I believe 21st century philosophy is today and the reason that foundationalist approaches have failed to fill the skepticism gap. Pragmatism is now a heavy contender to be called the law of the land (and science in its experimental approach is one of the kings of that hill).

Thanks for the discussion. Happy New Year.

Warm regards, Harv

• polite skepticism about discounting math's distinguished tools - quiet - December 30, 2001 - 23:55 UTC
  • 'except' credentialism - quiet - December 30, 2001 - 23:57 UTC
  • That means in regards to our understanding the world - harvey1 - December 31, 2001 - 00:53 UTC
    • Correction - harvey1 - December 31, 2001 - 00:56 UTC
  • That means in regards to our understanding the world - harvey1 - December 31, 2001 - 00:56 UTC
    • bits, bytes, bards, & bouts with bullies - quiet - December 31, 2001 - 01:32 UTC
• You're welcome, Harv - pmartin - December 31, 2001 - 04:57 UTC