[donh]

"Proving" a mathematical theory simply establishes that it is consistent with the assumptions of the established framework of discussion; it says nothing about whether or not it is true in any sense of the word.

It doesn't even establish that with certainty. Several famous examples exist. The four-color theorem was proved for a while, and then went back to being unproved. "Principia Mathematica" was accepted for about 50 years before an industrious grad student found a flaw in the proof.

Anything humans, being fallable finite entities, have to turn a crank on to produce results, such as proofs in formal systems, is subject to recall.

[balrog666]

Anything humans, being fallable finite entities, have to turn a crank on to produce results, such as proofs in formal systems, is subject to recall.

Yes, that too is a factor to consider.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Anything humans, being fallable finite entities, have to turn a crank on to produce results, such as proofs in formal systems, is subject to recall.

Granted.

I should've just said (rather, more strongly emphasized) "mathematical theories do indeed need disclaimers too", that would have nipped the show-offs in the bud. Well, maybe.

[VadeRetro]

I probably could have cut some volume off of this thread by suggesting that all references to "evolution" in the disclaimer be substituted with "plate tectonics," "origin of life" with "configuration of continents," etc. After all, it turns out that it's not about evolution per se.