You CAN Change Your Axioms

David Sklansky · #1 08-30-2005, 06:40 PM

Just wanted to point out that the unacceptability of coming to a conclusion that can't be reached from your initial premises (while its negation can) does not mean that you have to abandon that conclusion. If in your heart that conclusion feels like it must be true, all you have to do to remain consistent, is appropriately alter you initial premise or axiom. Of course by doing that you may wind up having to alter OTHER conclusions that stemmed from the original, but now altered premise. But if the conclusion that forced this alteration is especially clearcut or important to your values, you have no choice.

This whole procedure is second nature to world class scientists but takes some getting used to by your average Joe.

David Sklansky · #2 08-31-2005, 07:27 PM

I can't believe that I have to bump this. It is one of my most important posts as far as I am concerned. It is pretty much the reason for my silly questions. Where is everybody?

Jman28 · #3 08-31-2005, 07:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe that I have to bump this. It is one of my most important posts as far as I am concerned. It is pretty much the reason for my silly questions. Where is everybody?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing to comment on. The statements you made are obviously true.

Should we just respond saying either "Oh, I didn't realize that. Interesting." or "Yeah, I know" ?

David Sklansky · #4 08-31-2005, 08:27 PM

I kind of hoped that obvious or not, people would write about specific exmples of the general idea.

xniNja · #5 08-31-2005, 10:19 PM

Seems too obvious to interest someone who would understand it.

mackthefork · #6 09-01-2005, 07:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Seems too obvious to interest someone who would understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear, living proof that smart people are stoopid to.

Mack

m1illion · #7 08-31-2005, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe that I have to bump this. It is one of my most important posts as far as I am concerned. It is pretty much the reason for my silly questions. Where is everybody?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky reveals all and no one cares. Too damn funny.

fnord_too · #8 09-01-2005, 09:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe that I have to bump this. It is one of my most important posts as far as I am concerned. It is pretty much the reason for my silly questions. Where is everybody?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, here's a reply for you.

First, you say this is second nature to WC scientists. I think you may mean mathematicians, since scientists do not have axioms. Maybe you mean scientists who are trying to find a mathematical model of something, in which case you are talking about the trial and error process of theorizing.

If you are talking about mathematics, this is obvious and deos not deserve a lot of discusstion.

I worry somewhat about statements like:
[ QUOTE ]
If in your heart that conclusion feels like it must be true, all you have to do to remain consistent, is appropriately alter you initial premise or axiom. Of course by doing that you may wind up having to alter OTHER conclusions that stemmed from the original, but now altered premise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know something is true, say because you observed it, but your previous theories would not allow for it, then, yes, something is amiss and you shoud work on theories that are consistent with what is observed (and if you are dealing with general physical phenomena, i.e. not something like "Jane married Bobby? I didn't even think they knew each other"), then you should make novel predictions based on your new theories and develop experiments to see if these predictions hold. If on the other hand you 'know' something, but it violates theories (say "I KNOW that if I have two objects with identical drag to mass ratio's the heavier object will fall faster"), well, you get the idea.

You appear to jump to conclusions at times. The best example I can think of is in "Poker, Gaming, and Life" where you state your belief that there is some physical link between Hawking's life span with Lou Gherig's disease and his intelligence. I believe you said something like "There has to be a relation and scientists should be looking for a link between the two." (Obviously I don't have the book with me but I think that was the general idea.) I'm not saying there is not a link, but to assume one, to "know in your heart" that one exists is really taking a leap; I can think of several other factors for consideration in that particular case that have nothing to do with his intelligence beyond the fact that it has made him somewhat famous and productive even in his physically disabled state.

goofball · #9 08-31-2005, 07:30 PM

Perhaps many of the posters in here are scientists who already realized this, and the people who aren't/don't don't fully understand what you're sayin gso it seems to them like you're just saying something trivial along the lines of "you are allowed to change your opinion"

Non_Comformist · #10 09-01-2005, 12:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
and the people who aren't/don't don't fully understand what you're sayin gso it seems to them like you're just saying something trivial along the lines of "you are allowed to change your opinion"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much what I took from it.