Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
An example being?
It seems you are establishing a direct equivalence of theory and scientific object. ... What am I missing?
Axioms of science would be more like methodological naturalism.
Well, just that Euclidean space is *not* an axiom of Science.
In what follows it is my intention to be critical in an objective sense, regarding your approach. It is not my intention to sound critical in a personal sense.The term isn't mine, as I've noted. It came from Noble. I'm using it per the impression I got from his text, but he gave no explicit definition. Therefore, it seems silly for me to suddenly pull an explicit definition from thin air ... and somewhat unfair to you.
In what follows it is my intention to be critical in an objective sense, regarding your approach. It is not my intention to sound critical in a personal sense.
I am surprised you think it appropriate and productive to use a term, in a discussion about science, on a science forum that you don't properly understand. A term that, nevertheless, is used within your arguments and within your responses to attemtpted refutations of those arguments.
I shall reflect on your other comments and may respond at a later date.
Formally speaking, some declaration of scientific objective reality, (ie: some 'object' exists as part of science's view of reality), can only be agreed once some tentative hypothesis has been consistently, repeatedly (and independently) verified by formal observations.People observe all kinds of things with no idea what it means. Those observations can't be the object of a theory if the theory did not yet exist. It is only when meaning is assigned that it becomes a scientific object.
The problem is, there is not a single definition of axiom. The tautological axioms of abstract formal systems will not be quite the same kind of beast as the axioms of science, which are falsifiable.OK. Are you saying science does have axioms, then? Because it seemed to me others were saying it does not ... though, again, I'm not sure I know what various people mean when they use that term.
Are you trying to clarify that it is not an axiom of science, but is an axiom of space-time theory (and wouldn't Minkowski space be the better term?)? Or, are you trying to say it's not an axiom of any sciency thing whatsoever?
The problem is, there is not a single definition of axiom. The tautological axioms of abstract formal systems will not be quite the same kind of beast as the axioms of science, which are falsifiable.
By J_B_ ? I don't know - we seem to be talking past each other...Indeed, but what's the point being made?
If that's a veiled reference to me, it's way off beam.Some are arguing science has no axioms. They seem to equate empirical observation with truth. If we see it and name a principle after it, that's a truth, not an axiom.
Because we don't know exactly what you are driving at, that "someone" should be you.
I wasn't the one who added a discussion of axioms into the conversation. If my search was correct, it first came from @durangodawood and @FrumiousBandersnatch in posts #23/#24. It only seems fair to let them define what they meant.
Are you trying to clarify that it is not an axiom of science, but is an axiom of space-time theory (and wouldn't Minkowski space be the better term?)?
I only pointed out that science is not an axiomatic formal system--which is true whether it has axioms of its own or not..Correction. I guess it was @Speedwell in post #4. The search function for CF isn't very good. Axiom, axioms, and axiomatic have to be typed explicitly in separate searches ... or am I doing something wrong?
Right, not an axiom of science, but assumptions, stated or not, in a particular model.
I wouldn't quite call them axioms, but they are assumptions used in building a particular model.
Euclidean space is an assumption of Newtonian mechanics.
'flat' Minkowski space is an assumption of special relativity.
Riemannian space is an assumption of general relativity.
I only pointed out that science is not an axiomatic formal system--which is true whether it has axioms of its own or not..
I am a biologist (graduate + career, now retired). But this isn't a question of biology or geology, it's a question about the necessary foundations of science.Likewise, I'm not equipped to argue biology. Neither of us are biologists (I believe), and so this has already devolved into a semantic debate.
"An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments." WikipediaWhat is an axiom vs. a foundational empirical observation?
Specialities are not relevant, I'm talking about the philosophy of science.I'm not sure we have any scientific common ground upon which we can discuss your proposed question of axioms. If we discuss something from your specialty, it most certainly won't be mine, and if we discuss something from my specialty, it most certainly won't be yours.
Force is inferred from observation, part of a scientific model, i.e. a result of the application of science.But if you want me to throw something out for discussion, how about "force"? It would be interesting for me to see it discussed by you (@FrumiousBandersnatch ), @Ophiolite , and @Speedwell , but I imagine you're not going to let me sit on the sidelines and observe.
Right, not an axiom of science, but assumptions, stated or not, in a particular model.
I wouldn't quite call them axioms, but they are assumptions used in building a particular model.
Euclidean space is an assumption of Newtonian mechanics.
'flat' Minkowski space is an assumption of special relativity.
Riemannian space is an assumption of general relativity.
I guess jumping back to #4 if that's where it started, Gödel's Theorem is never going to be relevant to science. Mathematical axiomatic systems are nothing but their axioms. Everything else follows as a necessary logical consequence. That's not what science is, even if it has assumptions.
I would offer this again. For science to operate it requires certain assumptions that are deeper than any one fields reigning paradigm. I think its fair to call those assumptions "axioms".OK. Still, feel free to offer what you think an axiom is.
I am a biologist (graduate + career, now retired).
But this isn't a question of biology or geology, it's a question about the necessary foundations of science.
"An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments." Wikipedia
This began when I responded to comment #23 in which durangodawood said, "I think science does rest on certain unprovable but intuitively precious axioms. Like: this stuff is real and Im not a brain in a vat. Etc." On reflection (#24), it seemed to me that science need not rest on such axioms - that they are not a necessary basis for or foundation of science. I wanted to get some opinions on this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?