> It certainly does, starting with the metaphysical assumption that the
> world is cognizable and mathematizable.
Not metaphysical, epistemological. And as you say, it's an *assumption,* not a "foundation." Foundations are something you can build on; you can't build on assumptions.
That said, it seems to be a pretty safe assumption --- it's gotten us pretty far in the last few centuries.
The word "metaphysical," by the way, seems to be favored a lot more by non-philosophers than by philosophers these days. With all the water that's gone over the dam since Kant, at least, concerning what metaphysics is and how it can be conducted, if at all, professional philosophers have pretty much abandoned the term, it seems, as being not a very useful one. But amateurs still think there's something important about it, I guess; the term sounds very impressive, at least.
And I suppose everyone knows the origin of the term: it just means "the books that come after the books 'On Nature' in the first edition of Aristotle."
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax