🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <314r39$14m@jester.cc.msstate.edu>,
Frank Peters <fwp@CC.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>Marc A. Belanger <3914MABE@vm1.ulaval.ca> says:
>>In article <30vca1$8g9@Jester.CC.MsState.Edu>
>>fwp@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) writes:
>>>No.  Does he suggest any replacement for falsifiability?  Or does he
>>>recommend that we just accept any theory that sounds reasonable without
>>>testing?
>>>
>>I does not really argue about replacing or not falsifiability but says that
>>it is not the way things go. 
>
>I'm afraid that I don't understand this sentence.  Not the way what
>things go?  Not the way theories are tested in science?
>
>>>                                               I'd have to think about
>>>whether I would call it a science.
>>>
>>If mathematics is not a science then half of physics (which is maths) is
>>not either. But it still remains that predictions does not work in maths.
>
>Relevance?  Washing beakers is a major part of chemistry and it isn't
>a science.  Math is a tool.  The field of mathematics need not be a
>science in order to be a useful tool in science.
>
>Not, mind you, that I've decided that math isn't a science.
>

Math is the precise, carefully constructed, quantitative language of science.
It is made up of definitions and theorems (subtile tautologies) that relate
the defined objects.

Science is made up of definitions and postulates (laws) about how the defined
quantities (measurable real world objects or concepts) behave and relate.
Laws are considered conditionally valid if many attempts have
been made to falsify them and failed, or if they have been shown to be valid
for a restricted class of intersting events.  Newtonian physics, for example,
is quite adequate for a large class of interesting events, but is not adequate
for explaining the structure and properties of atoms.  

That science is a good way for people to attempt to understand the world is
not provable, it's a question of taste.  Many unscientific people are quite
successful and even happy (poor souls).