Re: [epistemology] Meaningless circularities (Georges)

[Giorgio Menon <giorgio.menon(at)pd.infn.it>]

Antonio Rossin wrote:

> I wonder why you equal the terms "scientific" and "axiomatic".
> So late, I had been told that:
>
> - "scientific" means "repeatable within practice", whilst
>
> - "axiomatic" means "formulated into exclusively abstract
> or formal only principles that don't require demonstration":
> thus a matter of religious-like faith, rather than everyone's
> "scientific" (i.e., *repeatable*) practical experiencing.
>
> Maybe, your wanted EPISTEMOLOGICAL REVOLUTION
> could begin here...

Hi Antonio,
 now that i know that "scientific" means "repeatable within practice"
i'm  very puzzled. Is a falling stone a "scientific" thing? Or does such
"scientific"term deal with human practice only? Banging the head against
a wall is a painful experience, always. Thus "scientific"?
Or isn't "scientific" any explanation using the language of modern
science, no matter how "repeatable within practice" it is? A. Einstein's
Gedanke experiments are  "scientific" (i suppose....) but "repeatable
within practice"? Or Schroedinger's cat?
I don't know where you've found the definition of "axiomatic", but i
don't understand what axiomatic resoning makes you say it doesn't
require demonstration.
Isn't the same "repeatable within practice" a form of demontration?

Regards

Tonguessy