Re: goedel

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re. the following:

Funny but my dictionary indicates that an axiom is a "universal truth" for which no proof is required.

 

Funny indeed!

 

Bill misread my comment below on his statement:

 

We could start from the axiom that the instantaneous velocity of a falling object is proportional to the distance rather than the time* it has fallen. 

 

Comment:

 

This is an empirical proposition rather than an analytical axiom.

 

And, unlike the latter, it is subject to falsification.

 

[That is: Unlike analytical axioms, empirical propositions are subject to falsification.]

 

It is in a class with Aristotle's proposition that adult humans have 28 teeth - a proposition that, as Bertrand Russell noted, Aristotle could have falsified by looking into his wife's mouth.

 

Gunnar

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul Davidson

To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 11:47 AM

Subject: Fwd: Re: goedel

Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 11:47:34 -0400
To: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Paul Davidson <pdavidson@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: goedel

At 10:01 AM 10/5/2002 -0500, you wrote:

You said yesterday that something cannot be an axiom unless if it is "subject to falsification."

Where did you get that idea?

How do you know that an axiom cannot be falsified without trying?

Because you do not succeed does not mean in principle it is not falsifiable.

Funny but my dictionary indicates that an axiom is a "universal truth" for which no proof is required.

Paul Davidson

Editor, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

503 SMC

University of Tennessee

Knoxville, Tn 379996-0550

phone Number: (865) 974-4221

fax number: (865) 974-1686

http://econ.bus.utk.edu/davidsonextra/Davidson.html