Quote:
Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent
Here I disagree strongly with you, as you know. I find your concept of truth too restrictive.
(1) Make observations --> (2) infer hypothesis --> (3) test hypothesis --> (4) axiomatise hypothesis --> (5) derive other consequences from axiomatic --> (6) confirm consequences empirically Why does this strategy always work so well? You say "because it's grounded on observation." But there is no reason why one observation should imply or justify another. I say it's "because it's grounded on mathematical derivation, which follows the rules of logic." I would be very surprised to see the (4) - (5) - (6) part of this chain fail to work, unless the axioms in (4) turn out to be wrong. |
You got things twisted around a bit, it's (1) Make observations -> (2) Infer hypothesis -> (3) axiomatize hypothesis -> (4) derive consequenses -> (5) device experiment to test consequenses -> (1).
You can't test without observing.
I would say it works so well, not because it's good at showing we're right, but because it's very good at showing us when we're wrong.
The fundamental axioms of science is that all phycisists are capable of selfdelusion and that any hypothesis may be wrong
__________________
An emperor without enemies, a king without a kingdom, supported in life by the willing tribute of a free people.
Cincinnati Enquirer headline about Emperor Norton I