Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8274300" data-attributes="member: 42582">Newtonian or relativistic physics can be presented as axiomatic systems. But they have empirical warrants: typically when presented as axiomatic systems it is various theorems of the system that correspond to the empirical evidence.Of course there's a trivial sense in which those physical theories are &quot;belief systems&quot; - ie they are bodies of knowledge/belief. Likewise mathematics, which is genuinely formal as opposed to empirical. But of course (on the premise that the number of primes is not finite) there is a prime number larger than any particular prime number that any human being has ever thought of to date. And in that sense there are mathematical truths that no one has ever believed, because never yet thought of.Moral philosophy is not normally presented as an empirical field of knowledge (some philosophers think it is). But no philosopher I can think of accepts the proposition that it is a formal system like mathematics. Or that it is a belief system in the sense of being nothing more than beliefs. Even moral relativists will accept that there are, relative to a &quot;perspective&quot;/&quot;framework&quot;, moral truths not yet thought of by any human being.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8274300, member: 42582"] Newtonian or relativistic physics can be presented as axiomatic systems. But they have empirical warrants: typically when presented as axiomatic systems it is various theorems of the system that correspond to the empirical evidence. Of course there's a trivial sense in which those physical theories are "belief systems" - ie they are bodies of knowledge/belief. Likewise mathematics, which is genuinely formal as opposed to empirical. But of course (on the premise that the number of primes is not finite) there is a prime number larger than any particular prime number that any human being has ever thought of to date. And in that sense there are mathematical truths that no one has ever believed, because never yet thought of. Moral philosophy is not normally presented as an empirical field of knowledge (some philosophers think it is). But no philosopher I can think of accepts the proposition that it is a formal system like mathematics. Or that it is a belief system in the sense of being nothing more than beliefs. Even moral relativists will accept that there are, relative to a "perspective"/"framework", moral truths not yet thought of by any human being. [/QUOTE]

Verification