X-Message-Number: 10261 Subject: Re: CryoNet #10237 - #10248 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 12:08:39 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <> > From: Olaf Henny <> > > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <> > > >> Peter Merel (#10221) points out that questioning Goedel and other > >> eminences is presumptuous. > > > >Preposterous is more like it. > > This, Sir, is a servile attitude, No, it is the attitude of someone who actually understands the contents of the theorem in question and has followed the proof closely enough. To question the proof is to question my own ability to reason. The beauty of mathematical proofs is that they are open to anyone who cares to read them independently verifying them. > *Everything* should be questioned, And indeed, I questioned Godel's theorem, examined it, and found it, with my own mind, to be true. One cannot question everything at all times. At some point you have to settle down and say "yes, I believe that the object in front of me is a wall, and that no matter how often I move my head in an attempt to go through it, my forehead will continue to be bruised". Sure, if Bob was able to show me a reasonably complete explanation of a hole in the theorem, I might very well believe it. However, he hasn't shown one, and I find the idea of his finding one rather difficult to imagine. Why? It is not because I think of Godel as a god. Godel was no more infallible than anyone else. However, I have no need to take Godel on faith. I have personally followed the logic of the proof, and I personally have seen it to be airtight, and literally thousands of others have also read the proof and seen it to be airtight, and I thus find Bob's claim rather difficult to swallow, especially given that Bob hasn't even shown an understanding of the general field of knowledge. Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10261