4 added 5 characters in body
source | link

Yes, there is a reason why mathematical facts are more certain for us than empirical facts:

One can prove mathematical theorems.

But nobody could prove general empirical statements, e.g., the laws of nature. In the domain of science, which builds on empirism, we can at best confirm our general hypotheses, but all confirmation does not prevent to findfrom finding a counter example at a later time.

Yes, there is a reason why mathematical facts are more certain for us than empirical facts:

One can prove mathematical theorems.

But nobody could prove general empirical statements, e.g., the laws of nature. In the domain of science, which builds on empirism, we can at best confirm our general hypotheses, but all confirmation does not prevent to find a counter example at a later time.

Yes, there is a reason why mathematical facts are more certain for us than empirical facts:

One can prove mathematical theorems.

But nobody could prove general empirical statements, e.g., the laws of nature. In the domain of science, which builds on empirism, we can at best confirm our general hypotheses, but all confirmation does not prevent from finding a counter example at a later time.

3 deleted 1 character in body
source | link

Yes, there is a reason why mathematical facts are more certain for us than empirical facts:

One can prove mathematical theoremestheorems.

But nobody could prove general empirical statements, e.g., the laws of nature. In the domain of science, which builds on empirism, we can at best confirm our general hypotheses, but all confirmation does not prevent to find a counter example at a later time.

Yes, there is a reason why mathematical facts are more certain for us than empirical facts:

One can prove mathematical theoremes.

But nobody could prove general empirical statements, e.g., the laws of nature. In the domain of science, which builds on empirism, we can at best confirm our general hypotheses, but all confirmation does not prevent to find a counter example at a later time.

Yes, there is a reason why mathematical facts are more certain for us than empirical facts:

One can prove mathematical theorems.

But nobody could prove general empirical statements, e.g., the laws of nature. In the domain of science, which builds on empirism, we can at best confirm our general hypotheses, but all confirmation does not prevent to find a counter example at a later time.

2 added 61 characters in body
source | link

Yes, there is a reason why mathematical facts are more certain for us than empirical facts:

One can prove mathematical theoremes.

But nobody could prove general empirical statements, e.g., the laws of nature. In the domain of science, which builds on empirism, we can at best confirm our general hypotheses, but all confirmation does not prove themprevent to find a counter example at a later time.

Yes, there is a reason why mathematical facts are more certain for us than empirical facts:

One can prove mathematical theoremes.

But nobody could prove general empirical statements, e.g., the laws of nature. In the domain of science, which builds on empirism, we can at best confirm our general hypotheses, but not prove them.

Yes, there is a reason why mathematical facts are more certain for us than empirical facts:

One can prove mathematical theoremes.

But nobody could prove general empirical statements, e.g., the laws of nature. In the domain of science, which builds on empirism, we can at best confirm our general hypotheses, but all confirmation does not prevent to find a counter example at a later time.

1
source | link