A QED Project for Science: The Promises of Computer-Level Formalization

[gusl]

Gustavo Lacerda - A QED Project for Science: The Promises of Computer-Level Formalization

Please comment, argue, criticize!

How crackpotty does it sound? Where does it need to improve in order to meet journal standards?

Comments

[bondage-and-tea.livejournal.com]

What's the target audience of this? I'd have said that it needs to be more specific, e.g. name an area of science.

The idea that logic can be an ultimate foundation seems difficult to justify.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

I agree that this is too dreamy and programmatic, and it would have been better if I had presented a concrete plan.


The idea that logic can be an ultimate foundation seems difficult to justify.

Well, the foundation are the axioms, not the logic. The philosophical position of logicism (i.e. "mathematics can be reduced to logic") is accepted as untenable, let alone for science.

Since we're talking about formalizing empirical science, then these axioms don't even need to be "self-evident", general or anything like that.

Is it possible to have a non-logical "foundation" for something? (and what would that mean?)

[bondage-and-tea.livejournal.com]

I have a problem with the word "foundation", not this particular instance of it.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

What's the problem with it?

One problem is the problem of infinite regress: when is one justified taking things as axioms? Still, "foundations" can be nice because they may be the simplest way of unifying disparate pieces of knowledge... foundations give us links through which we get explanatory unification.