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