The Axioms Of Scientific Investigation

I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm wondering if this "axiom" isn't actually necessary. That is, maybe there are deeper axioms from which this can be derived.If we take Mod's axioms:

quote:

---

The First Fact: The fact of our existence. "I exist."

​

The First Principle: The principle of contradiction. "A thing can not be and not-be at the same time in the same respect."

​

The First Condition: The essential capability of the mind to know truth. "My intellect can reason and discover truth."

---

Are we necessarily worried about being "brains in jars" or not?That is, even if we *are* brains in jars... we can still do "science" within our jar-existence, whatever that is, right? In which case, we don't really require an axiom to say we *are* in an external, objective reality.We can talk to others, and get information that way, without agreeing to an external, objective reality axiom. We can see if others can reproduce our results as well. This can lead us to believe that we are in an external, objective reality in itself... no axiom required.Although I certainly agree that we cannot ever "prove" such a thing.
But... maybe that's not something we want to "prove", I mean, what if our environment only appears external and objective in a local-sense? Wouldn't science be able to show that our environment is not external and objective, if it were so?Maybe an axiom along the lines of "other people are seperate entities from myself" would be sufficient?Or am I missing something? On the "worthwhile" side of things, I would suggest some sort of common priority such as: "truth is important" and maybe "curiosity on it's own is a reason to discover"... or something.

Again, I'm not sure if this is so much an "axiom" as it is something that is discovered in itself.If the laws of our reality do not remain more or less consistent through time... isn't it the scientific method that is going to show us this inconsistency?That is, if we assume they are consistent, and make predictions, and see those predictions verified... that then lends evidence towards our initial assumption. Or, on the otherhand, perhaps we will one day find those predictions falsified, in which case this would lend evidence to the laws not being static.Such a thing sounds more like a discovery after using the scientific method rather then an axiom used in order to function scientifically.

I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that one day science may very well be able to identify that we do not have an objective, external reality.-Science may be able to verify that some results do necessarily depend upon how they are measured
-Science may be able to verify that the reality I measure does not equal the reality that you measure...if science is able to verify/falsify such things, then it is not an "axiom" so much as it is a tentatively held conclusion.If it were an axiom, then if it were ever "shown to be false", we would then be forced to keep the axiom. If, however, we are willing to get rid of the data if it were ever "shown to be false", then it is a tentatively held conclusion, and not an axiom.Then again... maybe I'm thinking about the word "axiom" incorrectly. Because I could even say this about Mod's first axiom of "I exist."That is, what if science one day shows that I, in fact, do not exist? Then it is was no longer an axiom?I think I'm not really understanding what an "axiom" is as compared to a "tentatively held conclusion."What's the difference between holding "we exist in an external, objective reality" or "I exist" tentatively, or holding "F=ma" tentatively?I suppose there is evidence leading us to believe "F=ma" to be correct. There are also falsifiable tests that "F=ma" currently passes.There does not seem to be any evidence one way or the other that "I exist" is correct. I can't think of any falsifiable way to test such a thing either.But there is evidence leading us to believe "we exist in an external, objective reality." Namely... I can measure an object and get a result. And then you can measure the object and get the exact same result. Such a thing is a test for an "external, objective reality." Also, it can be falsified, that is, if I measure an object and get a result, and then you measure the same object but you get a different result... repeatedly... then we have falsified that we exist within an "external, objective reality."There seems to be a testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for being in an "external, objective reality" where there is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for "I exist."That seems to be a rather large difference. Are you sure we can call them both axioms?

Yes. That's what I said. I totally agree that there is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for "I exist" and that it must be assumed to some degree. That's why I said I agree that "I exist" is an axiom.What I was saying is that this is not true for there being an "external, objective reality." There are verifiable, falsifiable tests for there being an external reality (namely... me measuring something and seeing if you get the same result... if you do not, then this lends evidence against it. If you do, then this lends evidence towards it).So, if for one thing ("I exist") we have no verifiable tests, but we do have verifiable tests for another thing ("external, objective reality") are we sure we should be calling them both axioms?My point was to question having an external, objective reality as an axiom rather than simply something we can test for. I was comparing how it is different to something we both agree is an axiom - "I exist."

Yes, so it seems I think you're right and we aren't talking about the same thing when we're saying "objective, external reality."That is, when you talk about it, and make your point, I agree with everything you say.When I talk about it, and make my point, I don't see what's in error.The two things we're talking about may not necessarily be contradictions. We may be having a discussion where we're both right, but we're using similar terminology to describe two slightly different aspects of reality. I see what you mean, and I agree that somewhere we need to assume an external, objective reality in the sense that "things external to me do exist."However, it's still a falsifiable test. If the measurements you made (regardless of you being my imagination or not) are different from the measurements I make, then this shows that we, in fact, do not have an external, objective reality in the sense that reality is independent of you and I.We can never "prove" that just because the measurements you make equal mine that you certainly are not from my imagination. But science isn't in the business of "proving" anything. Science is in the business of gaining information in the form of verifiable evidence. And this certainly is verifiable evidence towards the scientific theory that reality is independent of you and I.So yes, I think there is an axiom in there somewhere. But I also think there's something scientifically-derivable in there too. Where exactly those realms are seperated is escaping me. I will say that I think "external, objective reality" is too broad to just accept as an axiom. I think the actual axiom can be scoped-down a bit so that it doesn't encompass so much. But... without me being able to provide a way to do such (or even a suggestion), I think I'll just slip away from this conversation for a bit and see where else it leads.I always knew I should have spent more time on English class