I don't go with science as ultimately axiomatic. We all tend to have viewpoints that require understanding. This is a challenge of radical interpretation - one Donaldson addressed at length, still leaving us with compassion for others and pretty rigorous evidence in evaluation. This needs to be two-way and I have lost tolerance for village idiots taking a superior, patronising view from the irony of idiocy. Joe's plays do not seem out of place to me.
On 29 Oct, 13:16, Georges Metanomski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Joseph Polanik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you (Georges) have invented a rule that your viewpoint can only be challenged > from inside itself. > =============== > G: > This is not to discuss with Joe, nor to prevent him from > making a priceless ass of himself, but to keep the record > straight for people who could get muddled by his lies and > inanities. > > What I said is that axiomatic systems are by definition falsifiable by facts > through inductive inference via > their own theorems. > > Aether axiom has been falsified by MM fact by entirely > internal induction via its own theorems. > > Since Galileo and Descartes the whole science is axiomatic > and works exactly like that. > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
