Re: LTV (fwd) - Friedman's Point

[Bruce McFarling <ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:41:14 -0200, Gunnar Tomasson
<tomasson@xxxxxxxx> wrote, under the title
"Re: LTV (fwd) - Friedman's Point"

>First.  Axiomatic constructs - be it Euclidean geometry, Einstein's General
>Theory of Relativity or the rules of Chess - are immune to challenge on
>empirical grounds; they are purely analytical structures that exist only in
>our minds.

>Hence Einstein's comments on the General Relativity:

>"The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness.  If a
>single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong [i.e., inconsistent
>with empirical observations - insert], it must be given up; to modify it
>without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible."

The VALIDITY of an axiomatic construct can only be challenged by
finding a logical flaw in the construct.

While that is the most complete attack on the use of an axiomatic
construct -- because if it is invalid, it is useless -- it is not
the most direct.  The most direct is to attack the RELEVANCE of
the construct. Just because you have created a valid axiomatic
construct does not mean that you have anything of any use except
possible a reassuring illusion of certainty in an unpredictable
world.

Of course, the problem here is that people working within any
of the more complicated axiomatic constructs see things in
terms of the construct.  One of the most serious problems with
relevance is when a construct leaves you blind to something
that can rear up and bite you.  And this is not something
that you can see within the terms of the construct: you can't
tell whether the glasses you wear are distorting your vision
without taking them off.


Virtually,

Bruce McFarling, Shortland, NSW
ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx