We discuss the thesis that nondeductive (inductive) evidence for a mathematical proposition - obtained mainly from large computer verifications - is sufficient to claim that we know that proposition.

The famous Goldbach conjecture will be a case in point, although we will tackle other examples as well. We reject this thesis, on the basis of a (new) argument to the effect that (deductive) proof is needed to have mathematical knowledge.

However, we also deal with possible exceptions, and admit that there may be some marginal cases not covered by our argument.

Coffee/tea, cake and fruit will be served at 13:15.