No not really. The test proves it true or not. Even if the axiom is the opposite of the hypothesis.
Axiomatically people believed the earth to be flat and the sun to revolve around the earth.
They believed in a wrong axiom. And were proven to be incorrect by a hypothesis that when tested returned the same results.
If the earth is flat then shadows would not curve at different angles at different latitudes at the same time. They do. As demonstrated by some Greek smart ass.
I think you meant that people have to agree on fundamental truths like observing reality is even possible. Then yes you are correct. See the Social sciences for how that turns out.
all i'm saying, i guess in the most obtuse way possible is
science doesn't believe in universal truth. we don't engage with people who do because there is no mechanism THROUGH science to obtain a universal truth
the problem we have is BECAUSE of that when we say "truth" we mean, "accepted to the best of our knowledge and tested every single day"
which leads to the idiotic argument from "universal truthers" who come with the position "if it's TRUTH how come it can be WRONG"
which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science IS
No not really. The test proves it true or not. Even if the axiom is the opposite of the hypothesis.
Axiomatically people believed the earth to be flat and the sun to revolve around the earth.
They believed in a wrong axiom. And were proven to be incorrect by a hypothesis that when tested returned the same results.
If the earth is flat then shadows would not curve at different angles at different latitudes at the same time. They do. As demonstrated by some Greek smart ass.
I think you meant that people have to agree on fundamental truths like observing reality is even possible. Then yes you are correct. See the Social sciences for how that turns out.
you ACCEPT an axiom to be true in order to build the foundations for debate on things that are built on that assumption
if the axiom is proven false then you accept something else as true and start over
NOTHING is universally true. to claim such would be like saying you know for fact that the fundamental axiom WILL NEVER CHANGE
no one makes that claim. they only say that given what we know. this is the truth we accept
Can we observe reality?
It's a simple yes or no. If you hold that statement as not true then we can't even start a debate. As it would be pointless.
If you answer yes. You have asserted no truth about the nature of anything except that it can be understood using your senses.
This is an axiomatic fundamental for even engaging in empiricism.
all i'm saying, i guess in the most obtuse way possible is
science doesn't believe in universal truth. we don't engage with people who do because there is no mechanism THROUGH science to obtain a universal truth
the problem we have is BECAUSE of that when we say "truth" we mean, "accepted to the best of our knowledge and tested every single day"
which leads to the idiotic argument from "universal truthers" who come with the position "if it's TRUTH how come it can be WRONG"
which is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science IS