Deuce, ah the joy of arguing with a smug, self-satisfied moron.
1) That the world is not flat first got traction because someone sailed round it. We KNOW it is not flat because people have taken pictures of it from space. This is experimental proof not reason, except in the most pedantic manner of saying the brain interprets photos and the brain is responsible for “reason” therefore reason is what says the world is flat. Note that it is not just one experiment but numerous experimental facts that say the world is not flat. Certainly it was not found to be round by guys in white togas arguing from first principles but from people making observations. The former (maybe without the togas) is what I can reason, the latter is experiment. The Standard Model for three of the four forces is an example of experiment driven theory. If you think you can derive it from pure reason and posit a set of axioms along with a logically consistent proof of the model then there is a million dollars waiting for you to claim from the Clay Mathematical institute. So far the brightest minds in the world have only managed it for two dimensions – it is currently considered one of the toughest problems in Applied Maths.
2) Firstly, as we being pedantic the axiom of the excluded middle – what you have called the “law of non-contradiction” – is an axiom not a law. There is a large school of logic and mathematics for which things can be neither true nor their negation true, an example is synthetic differential geometry or “intuitionist” logic (which has nothing to do with what you are calling logic) or fuzzy or polish logic. It is commonly assumed because it makes things much easier to prove but like the axiom of choice is quite controversial. Secondly, if you point is to say that it is TRUE to say classical mechanics is FALSE then you are simply repeating what I am saying but in a puffed up “aren’t I smart” way. Does that mean in any way that General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory are TRUE? Nope. Does it imply it? Nope. Does it suggest it is more likely to be true? Nope. It says absolutely nothing.
3) I am going to be kind and assume you are simply confused about mathematical “truth” and scientific “truth”. Mathematical “truth” says absolutely nothing about the real world, whereas scientific “truth” is ONLY about the real world. It is as much a construct of the mind as Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel roof. Mathematical proof is solely contingent on axioms picked so Mr Derbyshire and myself – and I suggest any other mathematician – would be a “relativist” in that we consider Hyperbolic geometry to be just as “true” as Euclidean geometry. The final arbiter of scientific “truth” is experiment.
4) You can measure a “falsity” claim by testing it against experiment. Classical mechanics did not give way to quantum mechanics because of “reason”, it gave way because it gave the wrong results for Blackbody radiation, photoelectric effect, energy levels for electrons etc etc etc. So we can say with 100% certainty that classical mechanics is wrong. As for not being able to “measure” claims, it is this sort of idiotic comment which led to me claiming you cannot be a scientist. Classical mechanics made very very precise claims about all of the above situations which most certainly CAN be measured.
5) As for the idea that if you can say something is false then you can say there must be “truth” then only in the pedantic “it is true that x is false”. I can say I have a much higher level of confidence in Evolution than ID because ID has failed every single hurdle and Evolution has passed every single one. Does that mean that Evolution is true or “truer”, nope. This problem of induction was brought up by Hume and solved by Popper.
Buy a book, you’ll look less of a prat.
