From: Tony Williams 

Paul Ranson wrote:
> I think that's more maths than science.

Them's fightin' words. 

> IIRC the Peano axioms generate
> 'arithmetic' but while arithmetic obviously has a bearing on reality the
> formal definitions are abstract. We can work with 9 dimensional geometry
> without having to consider what such a thing would mean physically.

I see what you mean, but I was thinking more of the way that science says
"if this then that", where the "this" is assumed to be
always true. Writing it down though, I realise that the assumption just
restricts the scope of the theory.

--
Tony

> Paul
>
> "Tony Williams"  wrote in message
> news:437d04aa$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>Robert Comer wrote:
>>
>>>>I wasn't trying to define "science". Are you
claiming that there is a
>>>>scientific fact known with 100% accuracy and certainty?
>>>
>>>
>>>Definitely.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not so sure about that. It's my understanding that all science starts
>>with axioms which are simply accepted as being true. Everything else is
>>built on top of these assumptions. Ok, they're pretty basic things
like "0
>>+ 1 = 1" and suchlike, but there's still that foundation which has to be
>>accepted without proof. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
>>
>>Note that I'm *not* arguing against the scientific method here, because as
>>well as a push to extend theories there's a corresponding push to simplify
>>and reduce the number of axioms. Arguing for an Intelligent Designer as an
>>axiom fails the test because it's more complex than is needed to explain
>>observed phenomena.
>>
>>--
>>Tony
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5