Re: A theory of beliefs

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:48:42 GMT

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:27:02 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>In sci.econ Lester Zick <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:35:55 -0000, Ron Peterson <ron@shell.core.com>
>> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>>The concept of truth for mathematics is that a proposition is derivable
>>>from the assumed axioms. That concept of truth doesn't work for the
>>>scientific knowledge.
>
>> If the concept of truth doesn't work for scientific knowledge, I don't
>> see how it is possible to falsify any theory of science.In other words
>> if it is possible to falsify something, there is an implicit standard
>> of truth applicable to science and scientific theories.
>
>I said *that* concept of truth.

OK, the scientific standard of truth is not derived from axioms. But
there is a paradigm of experimentally defined properties against
which the truth of scientific theories is gauged in terms of self
contradiction. If there is no contradiction the theory is assumed
true.

>Why do you need a standard of truth for scientific theories? And, what
>is a standard of truth?

You need a standard of truth for scientific theories for the same
reason you need a standard of truth for axiomatic theorems, to judge
the self consistency of theories drawn in terms of the paradigm in
terms of self contradiction. In geometry and mathematics generally
axioms provide the basis against which to judge self consistency. In
non axiomatic science an experimentally determined paradigm is used.

The origins of axioms and physical paradigms are different. But that
doesn't mean that axioms are any less experimentally determinate.
For example, the geometric axiom that a straight line is the shortest
distance between two points is experimentally validated to the extent
possible. So are scientific paradigms. But both serve as a conceptual
basis against which to gauge the self consistency of ideas drawn on
their respective subject matters.

A standard of truth is just the basis against which the consistency of
theorems and theories are drawn. The difference between axiomatic and
paradigmatic sciences is that axiomatic properties are well defined in
axiomatic terms whereas paradigmatic properties are not well defined
in terms of the paradigm so paradigmatic properties cannot be analyzed
directly in logical terms but have to be analyzed experimentally.

>>>The sciences form hypotheses which are essentially models of the real
>>>world. We use those models to guide our actions to meet our needs
>>>and desires. If the models don't correspond to reality, the models are
>>>discarded and new models are invented.
>
>> Which is exactly what happens in the axiomatic sciences like geometry
>> and math as well. The models just happen to be constructed in the form
>> of axioms instead of laws.
>
>It's not the same thing. The sciences match up the models with some of
>the things that we perceived as being part of the real world.
>Mathematics has no need to do that.

Actually it is exactly the same thing except for the experimental
validation. When you refer to "things perceived as being part of the
real world" you're imputing some special kind of reality to
paradigmatic as opposed to axiomatic things. In point of fact both are
real and are equally real. The only difference is that paradigmatic
things define the result of material interactions. In other words it's
just the subject studied and not the method of study that defines the
reality of things of all types. There is no special reality attributed
to experimental things apart from the properties of the subject.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... the scientific standard of truth is not derived from axioms. ... show no inconsistency between the paradigm and theory. ... >> axioms provide the basis against which to judge self consistency. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... the scientific standard of truth is not derived from axioms. ... show no inconsistency between the paradigm and theory. ... >> axioms provide the basis against which to judge self consistency. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... >> of truth applicable to science and scientific theories. ... the scientific standard of truth is not derived from axioms. ... there is a paradigm of experimentally defined properties against ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... > there is a paradigm of experimentally defined properties against ... > which the truth of scientific theories is gauged in terms of self ... scientific theories are never assumed true. ... > axioms provide the basis against which to judge self consistency. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: A theory of beliefs
    ... > there is a paradigm of experimentally defined properties against ... > which the truth of scientific theories is gauged in terms of self ... scientific theories are never assumed true. ... > axioms provide the basis against which to judge self consistency. ...
    (sci.physics)