[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

*To*: dinosaur@usc.edu*Subject*: Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response*From*: Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com>*Date*: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 16:47:28 +0000 (pd)*Reply-to*: bigelowp@juno.com*Sender*: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 01:25:16 +0200 Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com> writes: > On 6/23/06, Phil Bigelow <bigelowp@juno.com> wrote: > The test of a scientific theory is if it agreess with observation. > The > test of theorem is if it follows logically from the axioms. While there is a difference, it appears to be rather minor. One is physical, the other is mental. Is a mental "test" itself an observation? >From Webster's Dictionary: Axiom: a statement that needs no proof because its truth is obvious; self-evident. So, how do mathematicians canonize axioms? In other words, what is the process involved in determining that a mathematical concept is "obvious" or "self-evident"? If there *is* such a process, then I'll wager it probably involves some form of testing. Which is not that different than the testing of scientific hypotheses and theories. <pb> --

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response***From:*Andreas Johansson <andreasj@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Fwd: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Next by Date:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Previous by thread:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Next by thread:
**Re: WAS-- Re: Hanson 2006, Mortimer, Baeker response** - Indexes: