From: DRAGONFLY           
To: CHARLES DITTELL     
Subject: relig & logic??
Date & Time: 05/20/91 13:10:52
Message Number 16926

Don't worry.  Even if you're being words and obfuscative, I get your
drift.
     
   I was about to argue your points, when I realized something: It 
     
sounds like all we're doing is arguing over the definition of "correct."
You seem to use "correct" and "useful" as synonyms: something is 
"correct" when it can be demonstrated -- even when the demonstration
must have certain limits (including limits of accuracy!)  I tend to
use the word "useful" there.
    
   Of COURSE any "useful" theory is true for only particular contexts,
and of COURSE "useful" is a subjective term.  Newton's laws only work
for particular contexts, and they might not be useful for, say, someone
piloting a spaceship (or just building a T.V.)
   That's the reason I use the term "useful."
     
   Do you have a counterproposal for a term to mean: "Verifiably correct
in all situations; universally provable"?  (Personally, I believe 
any rule like that must be fictional.)  For the time being, I use the
term "correct" for it -- except in mathematics, where I'd use the term
"assumed" or "proven."
                        //Dragonfly//