Nice post, Georges. Personally, I like to avoid the term 'axiom' for the simple reason that so many people do not seem able/willing to understand/stick to the meaning of the word to start with.
4. Axiom of Sam Carana Given the nature of human beings, it's impossible for them to draw a line that even briefly remains in parallel with another line. Feel free to add my addition to your site, Georges. Cheers! Sam Carana On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:07 PM, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
