[FOM] Model theory and foundations

[Torkel Franzen]

Steve Simpson says:

  >I think this is where Baldwin goes wrong.  Insufficient awe and
  >reverence in the face of truly epochal work in foundations of
  >mathematics, e.g., the work of Goedel and Turing.  Consequent failure
  >to apply appropriate standards when evaluating "foundational" claims
  >of other research in mathematical logic.

  I don't think this is a fruitful line of argument. You may recall
that there was some controversy in connection with your own FOM
posting "Friedman's independence results, an epochal f.o.m. advance",
in which you claimed that the work in question "represents
tremendously important progress in f.o.m.". The question to what
extent your comments were justified was never resolved, and I don't
think there is any point at all in dwelling on what does or does not
constitute sufficient "awe and reverence" or on what is or is not
"truly foundational". Rather, let people present whatever
considerations and results that they consider relevant to the
foundations of mathematics, as long as the moderator does not find
their contributions obviously irrelevant or their claims palpably
absurd.

---
Torkel Franzen