Three postulates of science etc.

[Cult of Reason]

In the first chapter of the Technocracy Study Course (which can be found here: http://haraldur.mysticsoftware.net/etsc1_3.pdf ) there is a description of what I would call the philosophy of science (however erroneous my definition may be). It define what a fact is, and what a definition is. It then says that that science is fundamentally based on three postulates, paraphrased here:

1. The material world around us actually exists.
2. The laws of nature are uniform.
3. There is a one-to-one relationship between symbols in the 'mind' for facts and the external universe, therefore nothing has the priori quality of being unknowable.

However, whenever I have tried look (although not with great dedication) for any mention of theses postulates in a form such as this with google I never find any other sources for this, only the one I have provided.

Why is this? Is it because it is simply not usual to present these ideas in this form? Or is it outdated in some way (I would be surprised if it was, but it is possible due to the age of the document)?

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:29 PM

However, whenever I have tried look (although not with great dedication) for any mention of theses postulates in a form such as this with google I never find any other sources for this, only the one I have provided.


Because these are metaphysical and epistemological concerns (philosophical cocerns). So, when you use google, it would help if you type in:

1. "The material world around us actually exists" also type in "metaphysics".
2. "The laws of nature are uniform" type in "epistemology".
3. "There is a one-to-one relationship between symbols in the 'mind' for facts and the external universe, therefore nothing has the priori quality of being unknowable", include in your query this word "correspondence theory" (metaphysical/analytical).

These are huge discussions and would require a large amount of reading specially if you need to tie them with the philosophy of science. But, don't sweat, just get them from Wikipedia, the main arguement for each.