From: "Paul Ranson" 

I think that's more maths than science. 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.

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