From: | Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> |
---|---|
Date: | Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:33:59 +0100 |
Subject: | Re: [epistemology] Meaningless circularities (Georges) |
Antonio Rossin wrote:(Tonguessy)
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