[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[pop3]
> I strongly and emphatically disagree with your assertion that " There is
no
> such thing as a "rigorous scientific proof"..."
>
> I cite physics as a prime example. Various proofs, including proofs of the
> theory of relativity and the speed of light, for instance.
>
There is no such thing as a "proof" of the theory of relativity, nor of
"the speed of light" - I assume that you mean the constancy of the speed of
light? Given certain assumptions, one can show that certain consequences
are entailed. Some package of assumptions and consequences is called "the
special theory of relativity", and many of those consequences have been
shown to correspond to observations in the world. That is not the same as a
"rigorous proof" in some formal mathematical sense.
Physics is a prime example of many delightful things, including (sometimes)
rigorous reasoning, but it does not fit your categorization very well.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
