then apart from the user friendly jargon it has come to mean "given", if not explain to muggins. Dictionaries are not a reliable guide to anything much. adrian
ornamentalmind wrote: > Thanks George. You have supported what I had guessed. > > On Sep 8, 6:07 am, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> --- On Mon, 9/8/08, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps 'facts' = axioms??? >> ============= >> Or, perhaps not. >> >> Again pops up the axiom-drivel which we have clarified >> at least 12 times. >> >> Let's go for the 13'th. >> I give you a sporting 1 to 100 that your post will trigger >> parrots quoting idiotic dictionaries defining Axiom as a >> truth (whatever it may mean) assumed to be self-evident. >> >> Follows the 13th repetition of the clarifying message: >> >> Here is the second most discussed axiom in history >> after the Euclidean of Parallels: >> >> <If t is a disjointed set which does not contain >> the null-set, the Cartesian product Pt is >> different from the null-set.> >> >> Self-evident like goddam hell. >> >> Here come other 3 self-evidences: >> >> 1.Axiom of Euclides: >> <Given a line and a point not on the line, it is >> possible to draw through the point exactly one line >> parallel to the line> >> >> 2.Axiom of Riemann: >> <Given a line and a point not on the line, it is >> impossible to draw through the point any line >> parallel to the line> >> >> 3.Axiom of Lobaczevski: >> <Given a line and a point not on the line, it is >> possible to draw through the point any number >> greater than 1 of lines parallel to the line> >> >> One wonders which of the above self-evidences is >> self-evidenter than the others and how can >> self-evidences contradict one another. >> >> Leaving the drivel we pass to the definition of Axiom >> such as it appears in contemporary scientific Models, >> which are ALL axiomatic: >> >> Since rational science is born, scientific theories >> have the structure of inferencing networks. >> >> Middle nodes or "Theorems" are deduced from upper >> neighbors (premises) and induced from lower nodes >> (conclusions). >> >> Top nodes or "Axioms" having no premises cannot be >> deduced, thus are set arbitrarily by intuition and >> taken as granted as long as they are not inductively >> refuted by their conclusions. >> >> Bottom nodes or "Facts" having no conclusions cannot >> be induced and their logical value (certainty) is >> set empirically. >> >> All rational theories are by definition falsifiable, >> i.e. structured in a way to support bottom-up >> induction from Facts via Theorems to Axioms, which may >> eventually refute Axioms and thus the theory. >> >> Georges. >> ============= > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
