Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!mit-eddie!gds
From: gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Truth in Philosophy of Science
Message-ID: <1161@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Jan-84 10:05:40 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.1161
Posted: Wed Jan 11 10:05:40 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Jan-84 01:16:31 EST
References: mit-eddi.1137 <214@wxlvax.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 18

Note, Alan, in my previous argument, I stated that there was no such
thing as absolute proof, only proof subject to known information.
Therfore, the acceptance of the Bohr atom model would fall under that
category.  

(jmp to philosphy)

However, a statement such as 2 + 2 = 4 is not true by virtue of the
symbology itself, but by the physical equivalents of the symbols.
The statement 1 + 1 = 3 would not be false if one could logically
construct a world in which a whole theory of numbers followed from this,
but in our world such a statement has no physical equivalent.

(rtn to religion)
-- 
--greg
...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp)
Gds@XX (arpa)