>>16539069
>>16539070
>>16539071
>I do NOT understand the axiomatic method.
We get it, you do not understand the axiomatic method. Here's the deal, in order to avoid the complaints brought up in the article, we make a few assumptions (e.g., any two points determine a unique line) and then we see what logically and necessarily follow from those assumption.
>So you admit it! Told you!
Sure, but we can also assume negations of those axioms (e.g., any two points determine more than one line) and see what logically and necessarily follow from those axioms.
>Ha-ha! Mental masturbation!
Whatever, but we can also test to see if our assumptions are true in our universe. As a result we now know what truths must occur as a logical and necessary result.
Interesting enough, we might see different versions of the axioms in play. For a carpenter, two points make a unique line. For a astronomer, gravitational lensing can cause two points to determine multiple lines.
>You contradict yourself. I WIN!
Because the universe behaves differently at different scales? No, we observe that all the time, but now we can say why we observe this.
I am sorry if you don't see this as gained knowledge, but it is. We use this gained knowledge to do cool things like build builings, airplanes, global communications networks, etc. You use these things every day, even if you don't believe in them.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/sci/

Thread:

This shit fucked me up for real senpai. Anybody got a good response to it? Even Karl Popper just said "fuck it I give…