I was (re-)reading the Feynman lectures, wherein Feynman comments it is not possible to teach Physics the way one teaches math; that one cannot just give all the basic axioms we have built on the subject till now, and then develop from there. He goes on to say that one needs to develop an intuition for the subject. Isn't intuition necessary in math too (or is this a different intuition we are talking about?)? I understand that physics has more of its basis on experiments and that's where the axioms stem from. Once that is done with, is it not possible to use these as axioms and develop the subject from there? If the theory we build on is right and it predicts something that we can verify experimentally, we can do so and that would be a supporting factor for our theories. Is this not the same as they do in math: play with the topic, make a conjecture, see if one can find a proof and hence prove a theorem or chuck the idea? I also understand that no one does their experiment saying, "Hey! I'm going to look for an axiom that describes the world today." But when one does do an experiment, what does one use as a basis to model their experiment? How does one check if his experiment is right? He'd use whatever physics he knew at the time of setting up the experiment, right? So wouldn't that be like building upon the older axioms and hence more or less like math? Please and Thank you.