FOM: YRe: Improved: Hersh Fast & Loose?&Feferman's questions

[Reuben Hersh]

YY On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Robert S Tragesser wrote:

> 
> Need we be protected against all doubt-throwing
> skeptical terrorists in order to claim "certainty"?
> 
	WHY TERRORISTS?  WHAT TERRORISTS?
	YOU END THIS POSTING BY REPLACING DOUBT-THROWING
	BY BOMB-THROWING.  WHAT IN THE H ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
	AND WHAT IN THE  HOLY UNIVERSE IS GARDOL?


>         In my first Re:H.Fast and Loose? I assumed 
> that the reader had plowed through my posting 
> that inspired Hersh to object.  I should not have 
> assumed that.
>         Here is how things stand.
>         If I have understood him,  Hersh is happy to 
> characterize sciences by "reproducibility of 
> results and consensus" and mathematics in 
> particular as being distinguished among the 
> sciences by its being somehow very generous in 
> reproducibility and consensus.   

NO, IT IS DISTINGUISHED AMONG THE SCIENCES IN
THAT ITS SUBJECT MATTER, MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
AND OBJECTS, ARE PART OF HUMAN CULTURE, HUMAN
PRODUCTS, NOT NATURAL OBJECTS.

	TURNING FROM PROF. TRAGESSER TO MY FRIEND M. DAVIS,
	DOES MY CHARACTERIZATION OF MATH ADMIT CATHOLIC OR
	ORTHODOX JEWISH THEOLOGY?

	I DON'T THINK SO.  I AM AFRAID I FAILED TO STRESS THATOF
	THE TWO CRITERIA FOR A SCIEN CE, REPRODUCIBILITY AND CONSENSUS,
	IT IS REPRODUCIBILITY THAT COJES FIRST.  CONSENSDUS IS ONLY
	A CONSEQUENCE (IN SCIENCE ) OF   RPRODUCIBILITY.  CONSENSUS
	AT A NAZI PARTY RALLY IN 1034 IS NOT BASED ON REPRODUCIBIITY,
	AND DOES NOT MAKE NAZISM A SCIENCE.

	IF SOMEONE MAKES A CLIAM IN CHEMISTRY, SAY, IT MAY HAPPEN
	THAT NIS RESULT IS IN PRINCIPLE IMPOSSIBLE TO REPEAT, OR THAT
	OTHERS CAN REPEAT THE EXPERIMENT, BUT DO NOT OBTAIN HIS CLAIMED
	RESULTS.  THEN THE CLAIM IS N O ACCEPTED.  (THIS OBSERVATION
	WAS USERD BY KARL POPPER TO SOLVE HIS "DEMARACATION PROBLEM"
	BETWEEN SCVIENCE AND NON-SCIENCE.  ON THE OTHER HAND, IF HIS
	RESULT IS SUCCESSFULLY REPEATED BY SEVERAL ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS.
	IT IS ACCEPTED INTO THE BODY OF CHEMISTRY.

	THE PATTERN IN MATH IS VERY SIMILAR, EXCEPT THAT CALCULATIONS
	AND ACCEPTED PATTERNS OF REASONING TAKE THE PLACE OF EXPERIMENT.

	NOW, LET'S TAKE THE HOLY TRINITY, OR THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ,
	OR THE ILNFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE, FOR INSTANCE.  WHAT 
	EXPERIMENT, WHAT CALCULATION CAN MARTIN LUTHER (FOR INSTANCE)
	MAKE TO EITHER CONFIRM OR DISCONFORM ANY ITEM OF CATHOLIC DOGMA?

	YES, LUTHER COULD GET A CONSENSUS IN WURTTEMBURG (IF THAT'S
	WHERE IT WAS) THAT HE WAS RIGHT AND THE POPE WAS WRONG.  BUT
	NOT BY ANY REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT OR CALCULATION.

	THAT'S WHY WE HAD THE 30 YEARS WAR!!!

	BECAUSE THERE WAS NO AGREED ON MEANS OF REACHING A REPRODUCIBLE
	RESULT.  

	WHEN RABBIS LEARN TO SETTLE THEIR DISPUTES BY REPRODUCIBLE
	EXPERIMENTS OR CALCULATIONSD, I WILL AGREE THAT JUDAISM IS
	A SCIENCE.  THAT WILL BE THE TENTH OF NEVER.

	MOREOVER, I HAVE NO TROUBLE SAYING LAGRANGE'S THEOREM IS TRUE.
	ITS TRUTH RESIDES IN THE AFFIRMATION AND VERIIFICATION BY
	A LARGE NUMBER OF STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, AND MATHEMATICIANS,
	USING THE AGREED ON METHODS OF MATHEMATICAL REASONING.

	FOR PROF.  TRAGESSER, I WITHDRAW MY QUESTION ABOUT APODICTIC,
	I FOUND "APODEICTIC" DEFINED BY YOU IN THE COMPANION TO 
	EPISTEMOLOGY.

	INSTEAD I ASK, WHAT IS MODERATE OR TEMPERATE ANTI-PLATONISM?

	R HERSH