Why Natural Philosophy (Science) is ********

[Stone Island]

Axioms by Robert G. Brown of Duke University Physics Department:

Why Science is ********:

Yes, in a section or three we'll get around to religion, and show how religion, especially organized religion, is philosophical ******** however useful or useless you might perceive of it to be from a socio-memetic or ethical point of view. However if I did religion right now I'd be accused of being a Godless Scientistic, and since I'm actually a Godful Scientist I figured I might as well smash my own dolly before smashing anybody else's.


So just what is this ``Science'' thing of which I'm about to speak? I'm so glad you asked.

 

[Sefarst]

He seems to just be restating the same basic criticisms of axioms people have always had. An axiom by definition though is self-evident and needs no proof, so I'm not sure on what grounds he wants to challenge causality.

You could argue that the universe is ultimately self-referential and that using self-referential proofs are not per se fallacious. Then you could justify scientific induction using induction. Our beliefs have a certain inertia to them. If an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon, is it irrational to assume the same about other patterns I observe in nature? If I've watched the sun rise a thousand times, shouldn't the inertia of my thinking require I assume the same for tomorrow unless given a reason not to? But he could just argue that I'm using induction to transpose a concept of physics over cognitive science, so this example would be meaningless.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Brown's point is actually near the bottom. My bolding.

When I've ignored the Laws of Science in the past (assuming that my memory is in fact real and the past I remember actually happened in some approximation) I've gotten really badly hurt myself and remember the pain. My brainstem remembers something of this pain and automatically compensates for my movement while I walk without falling down. Humans are apparently programmed to learn Laws of Nature - fire burns, falling hurts, disobeying parents causes bottom-swats - from pain and experience as anyone who has ever been a child or raised a child should well remember.

So for no good reason (if ``good'' is supposed to mean ``rational'') I choose to believe these unprovable axioms as my own Prime Axioms, Axioms with a capital A. Or perhaps for every good reason. Perhaps they are a statement that is true but unprovable, just like this book. Mind you, they aren't enough - I add a few more axioms that also seem to work, at least for me - but they are most of what is needed to provide me with what appears to be a basis for conditional knowledge of the Universe, which is as good as it gets.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yuperoonies, any system of scientific epistemology is going to have axioms.

~~ Paul

 

[Kopji]

I think that philosophers are mostly really swell.

When I read this kind of stuff it makes me wish there were a Nobel Prize for philosophy. Each year we could watch the results of philosophers competing for a large cash prize.

 

[lenny]

When I read this kind of stuff it makes me wish there were a Nobel Prize for philosophy.

so why isn't there one?

philosophy's Nobel fate was not woven from the same fabric as mathematics, was it?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

When I read this kind of stuff it makes me wish there were a Nobel Prize for philosophy. Each year we could watch the results of philosophers competing for a large cash prize.

With which they might buy ...

But wait, first the joke. What is the cheapest department to run at a university?

Well, pure math is the second cheapest. All they need are paper, pencils, and wastebaskets.

Philosophy is the cheapest department: They don't need any wastebaskets.

~~ Paul