You CAN Change Your Axioms

[fnord_too]

[ 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.