Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (123707)	7/9/2005 8:34:33 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 794033

Let me put this in "EE" terms, since that is your specialty. "Maxwell's equations" are axioms, but they can be challenged. If someone sees further than Maxwell, his equations will be modified to allow for the change. We have seen this happening with Newton's laws. For the fun of it I did a google search for "Maxwell's Equations" and "Maxwell's Axioms" There are 164K hits on the former, 2 on the latter (nothing to do with EM). Most of the results of science I would call "laws" or "equations" certainly not "axioms". IMHO, using the word axiom interchangeably with laws or equations dilutes the meaning of all three terms one step further. The results of science are typically fitting equations to observation. Axioms are used as starting points in logical reasoning. One does sometimes see the term used the way you are using it since derived axioms also exist in logical reasoning, but IMHO, it is ill advised. The fundamental axiom of modern science is methodological naturalism. This is the starting point on which the scientific method is based. One cannot prove that it is the "correct" axiom, but the house built on this foundation has carried us a long way. It is precisely this axiom, that the new creation Pheonix, Intelligent Design, is trying to displace in the american schoolroom. BTW, Rick Santorum who has some Presidential notions kicking about is one of the players in this debate. When the environmental religionists went after Lomborg, they launched an "ad hominem" attack against him. They have denounced him from the "pulpit" of every environmental media outlet in the world. Instead of refuting what he said, "Scientists" denounced him as not qualified to publish on the subject. Lomborg was richly deserving of much of it. The fundamental problem was the book's title. His point of view is not that of an environmentalist at all. If he had titled the book something like "An Economist's Positive Outlook for Human Prospects on Earth" or some such thing, it would not have caused much of a ripple in environmental circles. IIRC, there was a single sentence somewhere in the Preface, or Intro that made that point, but in much smaller print than the title. The book would surely have sold far less well if titled thus, so I'm sure that was a consideration. It is possible I suppose, that the publisher chose the title for him, so he is not to blame. Ironically, it is the difference of two axioms that leads to these disparate views: 1) The environmentalist's axiom: It is morally worthwhile protecting other living species, in a manner that is not dependent on their economic importance to a single species and in a manner that is not dependent on continuous human intervention. 2) The Economists axiom: perhaps someone else could supply this one?