Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: The NCP: reply to Paul T. Message-ID: <135@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 21:49:13 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.135 Posted: Thu Mar 7 21:49:13 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 11:34:55 EST References: <801@wucs.UUCP> <5333@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA Lines: 14 > >... Any system of reasoning we attempt > > to use will ultimately be founded upon axioms which we cannot "prove"; > > we simply accept them because we believe them to be true. > > I disagree -- science is a counterexample. Unlike mathematics, science > takes as "input" not only axioms or definitions but also the evidence > of experience. In other words, science is empirical; not a mere formal > system. So it is not true that argument must stop at the level of axioms; > there remains the possibility of appeal to experience. Not that this is very relevant, but there is one big axiom: Nature is regular. Without this you are just wasting your time. Wayne