From: "Robert I. Soare" Sender: Computability Theory To: COMP-THY@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 19:12:22 -0500 DATE: July 16, 1999 TO: Researchers in Computability Theory and Mathematical Logic RE: Simpson and Harvey Friedman replies to Boulder discussion FROM: Robert Soare POSTED IN: www.cs.uchicago.edu/~soare/lectures/corrections.html WELL, this has been a busy time with email postings falling like rain, and me without any umbrella. This week alone there have been two from Simpson and one from Harvey, another from Simpson before that. They have made all those comments about ME with more than the usual invective and disparagement. Gosh, fellas, I didn't know I merited all this attention. I am really flattered!! (See .) The memos from Simpson do not require any reply beyond my original (and only) message of July 9 in which I gave mathematical corrections of Simpson's AMS Boulder meeting "review" (which you can find posted www.cs.uchicago.edu/~soare/lectures/corrections.html). However, an interesting point arises from HARVEY's memo on OPEN versus CLOSED debate (see same Simpson FOM reference,) and it suggests a LARGE number of intellectual questions which I discuss in my attached memo, together with reference to Robert Maynard HUTCHINS, former president of the University of Chicago: 1. How do we seek the truth using debate and testing of our ideas? 2. Should the debate be carried out OPENLY or behind CLOSED DOORS? 3. Is a meeting like Boulder with 60 participants including most of the world experts on computability an open FORUM for debate? 4. Is the FOM list an OPEN forum for debate on core computability questions? 5. Does the composition of FOM and the mechanism for running it facilate OPEN debate? 6. While in open debate, should we allow ANY CRITICISM AT ALL "EVEN IF THE CRITICISM IS ILL INFORMED" (HARVEY'S words) and EVEN if is has no logical basis, and EVEN if is has no support in the evidence and facts? When does it become just prejudice and not principle? 7. If we keep repeating a mathematical assertion even after being made aware of a mass of evidence which contradicts it, and we are unable to cite evidence to support it, are we still pursuing truth? These are difficult questions of which we only scratch the surface here. The next email msg contains my reply on these questions. It will not be a new paper but will be inserted as a new conclusion (section 5) on my July 9 "corrections" paper to replace the old one and may be found at the end of the former paper on the web address above. ======================================================================= NOTE: The full discussion can be found in: www.cs.uchicago.edu/~soare/lectures/corrections.html and the lastest part only (section 5 of the above) in: www.cs.uchicago.edu/~soare/lectures/corrections.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you have comments on any of these issues please send them to the UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO FOUNDATIONS OF MATHEMATICS MAILING LIST, the UC-FOM list: soare@math.uchicago.edu The wider the list of participants and email list, the more OPEN the discussion, the better. ************************************************************************* Robert I. Soare Paul Snowden Russell Distinguished Service Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science Department of Mathematics PHONE: (773) 702-6029, Secty: 702-7100 The University of Chicago FAX: (773) 702-9787 5734 University Avenue E-MAIL: soare@cs.uchicago.edu Chicago, IL 60637-1546 USA WEB: http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/~soare **************************************************************************