I quoted the Wiktionary: > an axiom is a "self-evident and necessary truth; a > proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; a proposition > whose truth is so evident that no reasoning or demonstration can make > it plainer." (from the Wiktionary) Instead of "self-evident," I'd say > "true by general agreement in the context being discussed."
Shane; > That definition seems unsatisfactory. The nature of an axiom, as I > understand it, is that it follows with absolute certainty from the > definitions of its terms. Thus, the Euclidian "Parallel Lines" is defined > as two straight lines such that at all points in one the perpendicular line > between them will have equal length. The axiom that "two parallel lines > never intersect" is "self-evident" because for it to be untrue would > contradict the definition of "parallel." "Non-Euclidian" geometry differs > from "Euclidian" geometry in its definitions, from which different axioms > necessarily follow. Shane, you may well be right. Not being a mathematician, I can't say that I know what the generally-accepted definition of "axiom" is. But I'm pretty sure that it involves something that cannot be proved logically or mathematically but instead to a premise for a logical argument. In any event, my discussion with John V. wasn't about the definition of "axiom." He seems to embrace a totally totally-deductive vision of how economics should be done, in which empirical generalizations are called "axioms" (and there is some sort of virtue attached to minimizing the number of axioms). On the other hand, I think that economics must always involve a dialectic between empirical observation and logical-deductive thinking. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
