>Because those axioms work, and are verifiable independently
Can you expand on what you mean by this. Are you saying, for example, that you've proven GR without axioms - you've verified independently that a specific constant c is a necessary condition based on other axioms (or somesuch)? I take it you're a foundationalist?
An attempt at an example: The Bible says excessive greed is wrong. One can argue that it is a simple consequence of other more elementary moral statements within. Lets assume here that it's an axiomatic moral statement anyhow (I don't think it matters for these purposes). It works; it's independently verifiable that excessive greed is destructive. In Biblical terms such destructiveness is wrong (another axiom) whilst clearly wrong is not a scientifically determinable position.
I don't understand your "hint" it sounds like an attempt at snarky humour from a position of petitio principii but I really can't unravel the intention inside the gag.
I don't know what a foundationalist is. I think the difference comes down to what you demand from your knowledge of reality. Every time I use the GPS on my phone to see where I am, I am relying on the axioms underpinning GR to hold true within the precision required to correct the atomic clocks on the satellites for time dilation.
The principles of GR may not model reality completely -- and it would be really unusual and surprising if they did -- but they're good enough for me because they're testable.
I don't understand your "hint" it sounds like an attempt at snarky humour from a position of petitio principii but I really can't unravel the intention inside the gag.
Here, I'm poking fun at you because (assuming you're not just adopting a religious POV as a rhetorical exercise) you have to die to find out if you're right, while all I have to do is open my eyes and compare my location to what my GPS tells me. To the extent these locations differ, I can ask questions and eventually understand why.
I see no need to consider the supernatural until I have perfected my understanding of the natural... which ain't gonna happen anytime soon. If that makes me a 'foundationalist,' then so be it.
Can you expand on what you mean by this. Are you saying, for example, that you've proven GR without axioms - you've verified independently that a specific constant c is a necessary condition based on other axioms (or somesuch)? I take it you're a foundationalist?
An attempt at an example: The Bible says excessive greed is wrong. One can argue that it is a simple consequence of other more elementary moral statements within. Lets assume here that it's an axiomatic moral statement anyhow (I don't think it matters for these purposes). It works; it's independently verifiable that excessive greed is destructive. In Biblical terms such destructiveness is wrong (another axiom) whilst clearly wrong is not a scientifically determinable position.
I don't understand your "hint" it sounds like an attempt at snarky humour from a position of petitio principii but I really can't unravel the intention inside the gag.