[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00450: Re: [epistemology] Meaningless circularities (Georges)

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

At 11:12 +0100 23-11-2005, Giorgio Menon wrote:

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...

(Tonguessy)
Hi Antonio,
now that i know that "scientific" means "repeatable within
practice" i'm very puzzled. Is a falling stone a "scientific"
thing?

(ant)
Hi Tonguessy:
I don't know whether a falling stone is a scientific thing.
I only know that the fact that all stones fall downwards
is a scientific truth, i.e. a repeatable experience.

(T.)
Or does such "scientific" term deal with human practice only?
Banging the head against a wall is a painful experience, always.
Thus "scientific"?

(a.)
Of course. The fact that one's banging one's head against a
wall, under standard circumstances, is a painful experience,
is a scientific truth, i.e. a repeatable experience.

(T.)
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?

(a.)
I despise those people who use the language of science in
order to impose un-repeatable experiences as truth and get
the consent of the innocent.


(T.)
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.

(a.)
I've found it in my Devoto-Oli Italian dictionnary.

(T.)
Isn't the same "repeatable within practice" a form of
demontration?

Regards
Tonguessy

Of course, Tonguessy. A truth that cannot be demonstrated,
what kind of a scientific truth is it?

ciao,
Antonio


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]