scientific community is deeply committed

Andrew Wiles had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem that had a hole, but then he corrected the hole and got a legitimate proof. This would mean, according to Popper's "falsifiability" theory, that mathematics is a pseudo-science.

The scientific community is deeply committed to a view of its own destiny which is well articulated by theoretical physicists. Historically, science is a series of commitments to mathematical apparatuses which, once they are established, are endlessly elaborated, but never discarded. One builds on Newton, Maxwell, etc., by recycling them; one never repudiates them.

In pure mathematics, the equivalent to this stance is that nobody wants to change the decision for the infinity of primes or the irrationality of [root]2 which was made at the outset of rational mathematics. These tenets are held to be valid by the latest, "Left-wing" standards--and to be the source and guiding light for all that followed them in mathematical history. The profession does not want the Greeks--who adopted the elementary theorems on the basis of elementary proofs--to have taken any other course.

>>1

His particular proof was what was falsifiable. His proof wasn't "mathematically correct" until it wasn't falsifiable (as far as we know). In other words, it didn't belong to the world of mathematically correct ideas until he fixed it. I don't see how that invalidates mathematics under Popper's definition.

I also fail to see the relevance of the political spectrum in your one-man tirade against mankind's entire intellectual history. I think questioning the very nature of science is something that's necessary and long-overdue, but it seems to me that you just deteriorate into angry babble.

If I've misunderstood you, I apologize. Please correct me.