(Message 221 by Dawn) Ie 'DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES". Can you test this axiom, yes?.
Ah, finally? An example of a "self-evident" truth ... supposedly. But is it always absolutely and positively true - that is the question - what are the assumptions that make it seem true based on our experience?
Certainly Poe and Shakespeare tell lots of tales, though they are (to the best of my knowledge) dead. There are also recordings of all kinds of dead people telling tales, and thus there is ample evidence of dead people telling tales. Furthermore, we can do (and have done) tests on dead people, tests that tell tales about how the people lived, lingered and died. Certainly "Otzi the Iceman" has told us tales - see —tzi the Iceman.
Certainly, in the common usage of this phrase, we can all agree to assume that this is true in order to see where the argument goes, but that is all you can do with any axiom - agree to assume they are true for the sake of the argument. Such agreement does not mean that it is true.
You should have read this before getting to my Message 240 that you replied to here.
Now, dont (sic) just say. Oh yes Dawn (sic) but they do leave clues, etc. Do I really need to do a test to see if this is true, tell me.
Are you telling me to assume that it is true for the sake of your argument? Now, I thought you were a christian, and I thought christians believed in an "after-life" ... and then there is the whole issue of ghosts and seances ... plus any number of religious beliefs involving communications with ancestors. Personally I don't believe any of them are true, but this is just an assumption on my part: I can't say I am 100% absolutely positively sure that no such communication is possible.
Nobody questions the fact that an axiom can be assumed to be true by usage and I never said that a test could not be conducted with it. Only that a physical test is not always required. The axiom must be demonstrated to be false in which case it would not turn out to be an axiom but a hypothesis. Understand now?
So now you are re-defining axiom to exclude falsified ideas? Actually all I need do is show that the axiom needs to be assumed to be true to prove my point (and proof is possible in logic yes?). All you need to do to prove your point is state an axiom that does not rely on an assumption at some level to be true, that is therefore 100% absolutely and positively true without question, through time and space. Understand now?
Ironically (sic) both of these definitions agree with my positon, (sic) watch this, calling something an assumption (as this explantion (sic) does, what is its (sic) source?)is (sic) not he (sic) same as DEMONSTRATING that it is not true or factual.
Of course. We assume it is an assumption. Curious that you question the source here when you do NOT question the source on the definition you like (you like that special pleading fallacy eh?).
You must first do this and then if it is demostrated (sic) false it in fact was not an AXIOMS. (sic) Axioms require no PROOF.
This is called moving the goalposts. You are now redefining axiom to be only those that have been shown to be true (thus making your definition beg the question), with those that have not been falsified being given only some temporary status until their "true" status is demonstrated. This is not a part of any definition in any dictionary or encyclopedia that I am aware of, and therefore it is a false assertion.
Sorry this is a nice attempt, but the answer on how you make these definitons (sic) reconcile is that the PRIMARY definition of AXIOM is the one you start with and use all others are explanations of that primary definition. Get it now?
Except you did not do that with science - you used the second definition to apply to "the science of logic" and not the first, which excludes logic:
That would mean you are engaged in (another) special pleading logical fallacy to be allowed to pick the definition that suits your argument, rather than fit your argument to the definition(s).
AND except when there is an entry that is specific for the field in question. That is why such special definitions are specified in the list of definitions. This also still ignores the multitude of definitions that ONLY define axioms as assumptions for the sake of argument. Let me repeat this again:
Tell me how either of those can be interpreted as (1) not involving assumption or (2) not applying to logic.
You did not show how those definitions do not apply to logic. Logically I can assume that you are unable to demonstrate that they do not apply, and conclude that axioms are therefore assumed to be true. Let me spell it out the full argument for you in proper logical format:
I dont (sic) mean to be obtuse here , (sic) but again, you are formulating your point from an assumption, that is no (sic) part of the definitons (sic) of any of the sciences you have provided. Watch this bit here,
Application of logical methods to the real world and testing against facts is not part of the science of logic, as it "uses a different methodology" and it is the study of the structure of logic independent of the content of the argument.
Again this is not the same as saying you cannot arrive at a fact from the process, that is simply ludicrous. The exact method of the logic of science is not a tool for you to use to establidh (sic) and unwarrented (sic) conclusion. In other words as I said before, I vertainly (sic) can agree with you interpretation but not the conclusion that follows.
Whether you agree with it or not, it is not my conclusion, but what the wikipedia article says.
You can arrive at a conclusion, but not at an (objective) fact. Whether that conclusion is valid depends on the structure of the argument and the absence of logical fallacies, and then, once the structure is valid, whether that conclusion can be sound depends on the truth of the premises (see Chiroptera Message 166). In no case can the conclusion be assumed to be 100% absolutely and positively truesolely on the basis of the logical argument.
Using a logical argument to conclude that the earth orbits the sun does not cause the earth to orbit the sun. You can't make up reality, and all logical arguments are just intellectual exercises in imagination.
Message 245 is a duplicate of Message 244 with the first quote corrected to be in a quote box.
Note to Dawn: once you are signed in you can edit your posts to make corrections instead of posting a whole new response. A little observation and experimentation will show you where it magically appears and how it operates.
Again, assuming it is an assumption is not the same as showing it is false. The definiton (sic) is not SAYING that it INVOLES (sic) an assumption (get it), it is actually saying just the opposite, you YOURSELF are taking it as an assumption to demonstrate that its truth is indeed factual.
Of course I am assuming the definition is (relatively) true (and the more there are from numerous sources the sounder is the definition) - that is the basis of definitions, that people agree on the different definitions for use in communication, so that they are talking about the same thing. Consider them as axioms, with every sentence constructed from words with commonly assumed meanings as a logical structure (and one of the reasons that people using different definitions end up with confusion and a break-down in communication).
Nor is it necessary to demonstrate that an axiom is false. You are missing the point if you come to this conclusion. All we do is assume that axioms are true for the sake of the argument and then see where the argument develops from that basis. The conclusions based on axioms can be valid or sound or invalid or false based on the structure of the argument and the (ultimately unknown) truth of the premises.
The most we can end up with is a tentative assumption of truth. Not (objective) fact.
Tell me in truth, you really a Logic professor.
Would it make a difference? The validity and soundness of an argument does not depend on who is making the argument, that would be an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Again start with the primary definition then move forward.
Are you asking me to assume your (false) premise is true for the sake of the argument? How does that help determine if logic can arrive at real conclusions, conclusions that can demonstrate some validity or soundness to the argument for ID? All you end up with is a conclusion based on a false premise, and that doesn't prove anything.
Yes, we start (assume) that the content of the axiom is actually factual and therefore have no need to test its validity, then we use it to apply to something else. Exacally (sic) my point. Question, what TRUTHS are SO self-evident, that allow this person to move forward so confidently.? Does he need to set here and test them all, of course not. You quickly see its validity then move forward to your other poin. (sic) This is really simple guys.
There are no self evident truths that allow anyone to move forward with 100% absolute and positive confidence. The most we can end up with is a tentative assumption of truth. Not (objective) fact. Sometimes we can have a high confidence in those tentative assumptions of truth, and sometimes we know they are very shaky because of all the unknowns that have to be assumed (like Rumsfield's "known unknowns").
We take the logical arguments as far as they can go, and then - if we are interested in their relation to reality - we test them against the (objective) evidence we can find of reality with (natural and social, scientific method) science to see if they stand up to scrutiny. We check to see if the conclusions based on axioms can be considered valid or sound or invalid or false based on that evidence. We eliminate concepts that are invalidated (contradicted) by the evidence to end up with an understanding of reality. Even then the most we can end up with is a tentative assumption of truth.
This last part almost makes it appear that you dont (sic) even agree with yourself. "If it is Reality" Really guys.
That's because what we know is tentative knowledge. Logical conclusions are tentative, scientific theories are tentative. The best we can do is dispense with invalid concepts based on the process of elimination by testing concepts against objective evidence of reality.
As beautiful an explanation as I have ever heard. Still don't see where it states this is the only method of arriving at a fact, do you? Here's a question I dont (sic) think I have asked yet. Is an axiom, that shows no signs of being invalid (I did that part for you guys) actually a Fact? If it requires no physical test and is obvious even on the surface, Would it be a real fact?
What is a fact?
Something based on our perception of reality. Our perception of reality is based on our tentative understanding of it. We all agree on some basic assumptions about reality and then see where that takes us. One assumption is that there is an objective reality. Another is that objective observations\perceptions are valid and true to that objective reality.
Again start with the primary definiton, (sic) then work your way forward. The definition you called "one Example", is actually the only example of Axiom. The definitions you provided are applications of specific terms within the primary definition. There is only one primary definition. Its not that axioms must be taken as true, they are true, because they require no proof. And they most certainly can be put to the test.
You are still ignoring the rest of the definitions, especially the ones that refer specifically to logic, and ignoring evidence that contradicts your argument does not make your argument valid. Even insisting on your definition of an axiom as a self-evident truth, you have the problem of self-evident truth being defined as a assumption made for the sake of the argument.
quote:An axiom is a sentence or proposition that is not proved or demonstrated and is considered as self-evident or as an initial necessary consensus for a theory building or acceptation. Therefore, it is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferencing other (theory dependent) truths.
Assumed to be true for the sake of the argument. This is the same source that allows us to consider logic as a (formal) science.
So let me try thias (sic) again. It was argued that Axioms involve ASSUMPTIONS.
Not really. Axioms ARE assumptions. They are nothing BUT assumptions.
"ASSUMPTION directed at Axioms are not for the purpose of establishing their VALIDITY, or to see if they are true, it assumes they are. Quite the opposite is true, The ASSUMPTION directed at an Axiom says that the premises(sic) it sets out or truth it involves is true already. The assumption says, I accept you as true, because you require no proof, now lets move forward, you ole axiomatic truth."
"Directed at"???
Do you know what a circular argument is? A straw man? This is your opinion not someone else's ... and it is false: axioms ARE assumptions, assumed to be true for the sake of the argument. There are NO arguments that are "true already" and we "require no proof" because we have by agreement assumed them to be true for the sake of the argument.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" We HOLD (understand, know, thinkk, (sic) see, believe, aknowledge (sic) and understand) these Truths (real facts already established) to be Self-Evident (because they require no proof.) Because we already know this, lets (sic) move forward confident that the axiom is valid and in contravertable. (sic) Again, ASSUMPTIONS validate and complement Axioms, they do not try to test them. Even if you do a test it will cooberate (sic) it anyway. "Dead men tell (speak) no tales"
I am sorry, my computer is having issues and I was doing it that way so I could get all of the points in I needed. I will try and corrext (sic) the problem.
You can use Open Office Writer (free download) or some other word processor (one probably came on your computer) to compose your posts and then copy and paste them into the reply window. This has the added advantage of having spell-check.
Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
Ringo writes
Note the word "We". There is no self-evidence without consensus. Essentially, "self-evident" means "we all agree that the evidence supports".
This of course is just a quibble, you need to demonstrate that the axiom it ITSELF is invalid, not simply say, we agree. This does not constitute an answer. D bertot
Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
Dawn Bertot writes:
... you need to demonstrate that the axiom it ITSELF is invalid, not simply say, we agree.
Not at all. An axiom is an axiom only if it is agreed on and only for the purpose of the discussion where it is agreed on. Whether it is true/false or valid/invalid is irrelevant. It's the agreement for the purpose of argument - the acceptance by the parties involved - that makes it axiomatic.
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
(Message 221 by Dawn) Ie 'DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES". Can you test this axiom, yes?.
Ah, finally? An example of a "self-evident" truth ... supposedly. But is it always absolutely and positively true - that is the question - what are the assumptions that make it seem true based on our experience?
Certainly Poe and Shakespeare tell lots of tales, though they are (to the best of my knowledge) dead. There are also recordings of all kinds of dead people telling tales, and thus there is ample evidence of dead people telling tales. Furthermore, we can do (and have done) tests on dead people, tests that tell tales about how the people lived, lingered and died. Certainly "Otzi the Iceman" has told us tales - see Thread —tzi the Iceman.
Certainly, in the common usage of this phrase, we can all agree to assume that this is true in order to see where the argument goes, but that is all you can do with any axiom - agree to assume they are true for the sake of the argument. Such agreement does not mean that it is true.
You should have read this before getting to my Message 240 that you replied to here.
Again, right off the bat. You change the difiniton of what I said. I did not say 'Can this be tested", I said "Do you need to test it" Try to be atleast objective.
The rest of your response is clearest example of the silliest bit on non-sense I have ever seen. Do you really believe any of the tripe in the statement you have offered. Do you really believe that if I was to walk to a grave, dig it, open up and wait for him to tell me something, (speak words with his vocal cords to form a word) that he can possibly do this. You are being axassive. You know exacally what I meant by the axiom. TRY TO ATLEAST BE OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE. D Bertot Off to work, will answer the rest of this later. No, you enjoy.
Re: No, no! Backward! 1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back! Now do-si-do! Promenade Left!
This of course is just a quibble, you need to demonstrate that the axiom it ITSELF is invalid, not simply say, we agree. This does not constitute an answer.
False.
The question is whether it is a self-evident truth and not an assumption. The truth or falseness of the claim does not enter into the discussion. It is an assumption: we assume these truths to be self-evident for the purpose of the argument. That is the premise.
Your conflation of this with invalidation just shows your lack of understanding of basic logic form and structure -- the science of logic you so touted at the beginning.
Again, right off the bat. You change the difiniton (sic) of what I said. I did not say 'Can this be tested", I said "Do you need to test it" Try to be atleast (sic) objective.
If you are going to claim that it is true without question, 100% absolutely and positively true then yes, that needs to be tested.
If you are going to ask can we assume this is true for the sake of the argument, then no, it does not need to be tested -- because we assume it to be true to see how the argument develops.
You ARE claiming that there are self-evident truths that are true without question, 100% absolutely and positively true, and you proposed the axiom "... 'DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES" (sic) ... " as an example of a self-evident true axiom.
Do you really believe any of the tripe in the statement you have offered. Do you really believe that if I was to walk to a grave, dig it, open up and wait for him to tell me something, (speak words with his vocal cords to form a word) that he can possibly do this.
But those are your assumptions that seem to make it true. THAT is not the question -- the question is whether it is self-evidently true without making any assumptions -- 100% absolutely and positively true. Other people believe different things, and there are many people that believe in an afterlife, that believe in ghosts and that believe that seances can contact the dead and communicate with them. Their assumptions make this statement false in their view.
You can tell many tales without vocal chords -- otherwise I wouldn't have access to the tales you are telling, for instance. Recordings, books, wills, letters, and similar can all tell tales long after a person is dead.
You are being axassive. (sic) You know exacally (sic) what I meant by the axiom. TRY TO ATLEAST (sic) BE OBJECTIVE AND REASONABLE.
Of course I know what you mean, because of common usage of the phrase. I also know that this common usage meaning IS based on common assumptions, and that it is not of itself 100% absolutely and positively true.
And AS I SAID we can agree that it is true for the sake of the argument.
Now we can both be reasonable and objective and agree that the preponderance of evidence shows that axioms are assumed to be true for the sake of the argument, because it is not reasonable to assume otherwise: that has been demonstrated.
The rest of your response is clearest example of the silliest bit on non-sense (sic) I have ever seen.
And yet I am not the one who started a thread title "Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?(sic)" but who has yet to make a valid logical point, to say nothing of actually making the argument implied in the title.
You have some 37 some odd (and some will likely be very odd) messages to go.
Perhaps if you focused on a Premise 1 for what you want to argue. Maybe a list of axioms for us to agree on being true for the sake of the argument.
Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
Dawn, why don't you read this yourself and see if you understand it:
Dawn Bertot writes:
I will call it the D Bertot methodology, im sure someone has stated it before, but it goes this way.
"ASSUMPTION directed at Axioms are not for the purpose of establishing their VALIDITY, or to see if they are true, it assumes they are. Quite the opposite is true, The ASSUMPTION directed at an Axiom says that the premises it sets out or truth it involves is true already. The assumption says, I accept you as true, because you require no proof, now lets move forward, you ole axiomatic truth."
I can't make any sense out of this at all. Since you wrote it I assume you understand it, so why don't you explain the "D Bertot methodology", in English this time?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident" We HOLD (understand, know, thinkk, see, believe, aknowledge and understand) these Truths (real facts already established) to be Self-Evident (because they require no proof.)
You can't win a debate by simply declaring something to be truth. If that were the case I'd simply declare it an axiom that you're wrong and walk away with the prize.
It is self-evident that objects fall, and they do, so that's true. It is self-evident that the earth is flat, but it's not, so that's false. Lots of things that seem obvious on the surface turn out not to be so upon more detailed inspection. What is self-evident to you about ID is not self-evident to anyone else here. ID will only become science the same way anything else becomes science, by providing supporting evidence and an accompanying framework of interpretation for that evidence.
Easiy enough. Try this one. "Dead Men tell no tales" Now, dont just say. Oh yes Dawn but they do leave clues, etc. Do I really need to do a test to see if this is true, tell me. D Bertot
So you would claim that 1 Samuel 28 is self-evidently false, a priori?
Then you're wrong. There is no internal logical contradiction in the concept of a ghost, therefore we cannot rule out their existence a priori.
To be self-evident, a fact needs to be true by definition. For example: "There are no four-cornered triangles." This is self-evident (to anyone who knows what the words mean) because the definition of a triangle involves it having only three corners.
still waiting for the main course... gettin' pretty hungry
I'm willing to grant you just about everything you stated (axioms, three choices, whatever). I still want to know how you get it helping ID in a scientific sense.
h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
So you would claim that 1 Samuel 28 is self-evidently false, a priori?
Then you're wrong. There is no internal logical contradiction in the concept of a ghost, therefore we cannot rule out their existence a priori.
To be self-evident, a fact needs to be true by definition. For example: "There are no four-cornered triangles." This is self-evident (to anyone who knows what the words mean) because the definition of a triangle involves it having only three corners.
It seems as though now we have moved from the sublime to the ridiculous in the responses that I am recieving. I assumed that were going to keep our responses in the area of relative intelligence, I suppose not though. Again the axiom must remain within its context. I this case it must refer to only those that are dead, not to those that may have or have not come back to life, even if you believe in this sort of thing. Ghosts or whatever.. This is what I find hard to believe. I am on the SKEPTIC OF ALL skeptic websites an now your responses are starting to include Ghosts. Hmmmm. If you cant answer the argument, JUST SAY SO.
And of course 'Dead and telling you nothing IS true by definition.'.. Its not rockest science people. D Bertot
Re: No, no! Backward! One Step Forward, Two Steps Backward! Now do-si-do!
Percy writes
Dawn, why don't you read this yourself and see if you understand it: Dawn Bertot writes: I will call it the D Bertot methodology, im sure someone has stated it before, but it goes this way.
"ASSUMPTION directed at Axioms are not for the purpose of establishing their VALIDITY, or to see if they are true, it assumes they are. Quite the opposite is true, The ASSUMPTION directed at an Axiom says that the premises it sets out or truth it involves is true already. The assumption says, I accept you as true, because you require no proof, now lets move forward, you ole axiomatic truth."
I am going to asumme (no pun intended) that a person that cannot understand this statement is not going to understand much of anything.
You can't win a debate by simply declaring something to be truth. If that were the case I'd simply declare it an axiom that you're wrong and walk away with the prize.
And of course anyone that cannot understand that "dead men cannot talk to you" will also never ever be able to see the simple truth that is being set forth here (in an axiom), or likely see any truth anywhere. Think about it. An being unreasonable is of course no kind of answer to my arguments.
It is self-evident that objects fall, and they do, so that's true. It is self-evident that the earth is flat, but it's not, so that's false. Lots of things that seem obvious on the surface turn out not to be so upon more detailed inspection. What is self-evident to you about ID is not self-evident to anyone else here. ID will only become science the same way anything else becomes science, by providing supporting evidence and an accompanying framework of interpretation for that evidence.
A simply rehearsal of the arguments that I have presented will demonstrate to any thinking person that I have established my case beyond any reasonable doubt. Again a TRUE AXIOM does not appear true it is TRUE and irrefutable, if you apply common sense and the science of deductive reasoning. A simple rehearsal of the fact that no is able to demonstrate any other possibiltes for the origins of things, outside the three, should demonstrate this point. D Bertot
I'm willing to grant you just about everything you stated (axioms, three choices, whatever). I still want to know how you get it helping ID in a scientific sense.
It seemed at first, that you were going to be one of reasonable ones, by your concessions on the 3 possibilites. Of course again KNOWING by the method of the AXIOM and decutive reasoning that there are only three and really only possibilites, one can easily see that a designer, creator is definatley one of those exclusive alternatives. Determining a solution for the origin of things, a science involved in this method (by the way,that the so-called scientific method provides no answer for at all)that allows us a CLEAR EXPLANATION, outside of religious concepts and ideologies. I have said and demonstrated this about 20 times now.
™ Version 4.2