***We cannot tell if they are irrefutable until we try to refute them! Some of those are quite refutable when misapplied to the wrong question!
Agree?***
agreed. it would be important to apply them to the right sort of question.

***Exactly NOT! Mathematics can be logically refuted in many instances by pointing out its irrelevance to a particular situation.***
perhaps but i meant with respect to the system of mathematics itself, sorry i realize i wasn't very clear about that.

*** Fairly elementary math is all that is needed for almost all decisions that humans make.***
amen and thank the good Lord.

***The exceptions are interesting -- but can you discuss them? ***
maybe, but what exceptions are you refering to?
like quantum mechanics or relativity?

***Dr. Dick never has discussed them on this forum as far as I can tell. I think there is much illogic done with math because someone has blind faith in math.***
well he has in his paper if your refering to QM and relativity. he does tend to refer to his paper in discussions. and yes much illogic can result from math if it not properly applied. garbage in, garbage out as they say.

***Well, I think you did not refute my idea that
scientific reality is a model that rests entirely on measurements -- hence numbers*** right i didn't want to refute your idea.

***-- but that if we have not discovered the properties of something and not measured it, then we do not have the numbers.***
i find this an interesting statement with respect to Dr. Dick's concepts of knowable and unknowable data. honestly i'm not quite sure what is truly knowable perhaps those things we believe we have succesfully measured, but i think i understand what he refers to as unknowable. unknowable stuff is the stories we make up to explain the knowable stuff. such stuff would be like relativity, quantum mechanics and questions we formulate to construct experiments. the future is also unknowable. the past could have been known, maybe.

regards, tim