Are Atoms Just a Model for the Unexplained in Programming?

[G037H3]

>axiomatic+change axioms to suit changing circumstances

sounds like science as well.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Hypotheses + changing hypotheses - not axioms- leading to theories, or working rules.
There is a difference. The point is that Scientific theories are falsifiable. That's the basis of the system. Axioms are just axioms and not falsifiable because you can't test an axiom.
Individual Scientists are only human and they may fight tooth and nail to maintain their ideas but the basis of Science is that it allows for change - it is a continuing search with no ultimate goal because it doesn't expect to 'arrive'.
The Others all believe that someone or something can and will supply all the answers or has supplied them already. Very cosy but a bit of a cop out afaiac.

 

[G037H3]

measurements=/= perspectives



i don't see how that could be misconstrued as difficult

 

[sophiecentaur]

What am I construing as difficult?
I am just pointing out the essential between the ideal Scientific approach and that of Philosophy (and Religions) which start with axioms. And an axiom is not a hypothesis because it does not need to be tested - you just state it and work from there. Natch, they don't all lead very far but some of them (like those used in Logic) have a good track record.
Or are you answering a different post? :)

 

[Gokul43201]

To remind the students that reality is not a bunch of billiard balls bouncing off each other in well-behaved fashion.

I guess this would be just as true if you were actually talking about billiard balls. Heck, in some ways an atom behaves more like the idealized billiard ball than a real billiard ball does!