Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: (Completeness of Theories)
Message-ID: <12600@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23-Mar-86 16:11:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12600
Posted: Sun Mar 23 16:11:11 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Mar-86 03:41:04 EST
References: <435@ccivax.UUCP> <13400007@uiucdcsp> <12239@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <695@hounx.UUCP> <721@hounx.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4609 net.sci:634

In article <721@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes:
>I am troubled by Popper's suggestion for a paradigm of attempting to
>falsify theories.

The only thing that troubles me about Popper is he sometimes botches the
science.  And for a while he believed subjects like astronomy, evolution,
and economics were not sciences.  (In decreasing(?) order of the sharpness
of the scientific method in these three fields.)

>                   In my view every theory is an approximation to
>the subtleties of nature.

G H Hardy, the mathematician, was once asked to define precisely what he
meant by the phrase 'a good approximation to pi'.  He answered, "any real
number OTHER than pi."

I can only conclude that the above anecdote must be a good approximation
of the real G H Hardy.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720