Except ender, they're assumed to be true because they work under experimental conditions. In otherwords, they're not just assumed to be true because they sound cool, they actually WORK in every single situation they've thus far been placed into. If some future situation breaks them, then they'll be replaced. That's how science works.
They do not work; they are assumed to work. If they were proved to work in every situation they would not be axioms, they would be principles... thus the reason for the different nomenclature. They are axioms because they really can't be proved to work in ANY situation. The circumstantial evidence may seem overwhelmingly obvious, but there it is.
Similarly, ID works under experimental conditions, just as well as evolution does. Take a rock and a piece of leather cord, and stick'em together in a bundle. Will they interact in any way? No. Give them to Macgyver (an "intelligent being" as it were), and something more complex and "evolved" will be created.
I'm not trying to sound like I'm coming out in favor of ID, but you can not dismiss argument based on a principle when it is selectively applied. That's hypocrisy. Unfortunately, the only way to ever put the matter to rest will be to conclusively prove that one or the other side is false, which ostensibly is never going to happen.
Ender, on account of the fact that not every situation can be tested they're not principles. That doesn't mean they don't work in every situation they've been tested with. There's a difference between working in everything that you've examined the axiom with and working universally. Scientists don't make assumptions about the validity of a statement just cause it seems to work right in the cases they've used it with thus far. Seriously, are you trying to imply that axioms in math and science don't have basis beyond what the mathematicians say they do? No, those axioms were created because they actually function in an empirical system.
That they do not have proofs does not invalidate the fact that they actually FUNCTION.
Should I be discounting Math now? It violates its own assumptions in at least two cases.
Seriously, the basic axioms were not created because they actually function in an empirical system. It's rather the opposite - the basic axioms were created to define an empirical system. A rather dodgy one at that, considering it's being fixed and refixed all the time. The sad fact is that the entire globe of mathematics has evolved simply around making sure the assumptions work. And 4,000 years later, they still don't work in at least two situations that are not accounted for by any other system.
Similarly, I can not say that ID works in every situation, but I did give evidence of it working in at least one situation. Reproducible evidence.
All I'm saying here is that you can not use a system based on assumptions to discredit a system based on assumptions. It's hypocrisy, and worse, a bad proof.
Comments 8
Reply
They do not work; they are assumed to work. If they were proved to work in every situation they would not be axioms, they would be principles... thus the reason for the different nomenclature. They are axioms because they really can't be proved to work in ANY situation. The circumstantial evidence may seem overwhelmingly obvious, but there it is.
Similarly, ID works under experimental conditions, just as well as evolution does. Take a rock and a piece of leather cord, and stick'em together in a bundle. Will they interact in any way? No. Give them to Macgyver (an "intelligent being" as it were), and something more complex and "evolved" will be created.
I'm not trying to sound like I'm coming out in favor of ID, but you can not dismiss argument based on a principle when it is selectively applied. That's hypocrisy. Unfortunately, the only way to ever put the matter to rest will be to conclusively prove that one or the other side is false, which ostensibly is never going to happen.
Reply
That they do not have proofs does not invalidate the fact that they actually FUNCTION.
Reply
Should I be discounting Math now? It violates its own assumptions in at least two cases.
Seriously, the basic axioms were not created because they actually function in an empirical system. It's rather the opposite - the basic axioms were created to define an empirical system. A rather dodgy one at that, considering it's being fixed and refixed all the time. The sad fact is that the entire globe of mathematics has evolved simply around making sure the assumptions work. And 4,000 years later, they still don't work in at least two situations that are not accounted for by any other system.
Similarly, I can not say that ID works in every situation, but I did give evidence of it working in at least one situation. Reproducible evidence.
All I'm saying here is that you can not use a system based on assumptions to discredit a system based on assumptions. It's hypocrisy, and worse, a bad proof.
Reply
Leave a comment