Is Logic a Valid Science in the establishment of ID as Scientific.?

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

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? D Bertot

Ironically both of these definitions agree with my positon, watch this, calling something an assumption (as this explantion does, what is its source?)is not he same as DEMONSTRATING that it is not true or factual. You must first do this and then if it is demostrated false it in fact was not an AXIOMS. Axioms require no PROOF. Sorry this is a nice attempt, but the answer on how you make these definitons 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? D Bertot. When Big Daddy B gets giong you cant stop him>

No, an axiom is assumed to be true for the purpose of making an argument. 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.I dont mean to be obtuse here , but again, you are formulating your point from an assumption, that is no part of the definitons of any of the sciences you have provided. Watch this bit here, 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 and unwarrented conclusion. In other words as I said before, I vertainly can agree with you interpretation but not the conclusion that follows. D Bertot

I dont mean to be obtuse here , but again, you are formulating your point from an assumption, that is no part of the definitons of any of the sciences you have provided. Watch this bit here, 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 and unwarrented conclusion. In other words as I said before, I vertainly can agree with you interpretation but not the conclusion that follows. D Bertot

Again, assuming it is an assumption is not the same as showing it is false. The definiton is not SAYING that it INVOLES 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. Tell me in truth, you really a Logic professor. Again start with the primary definition then move forward. D Bertot

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 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. This is really simple guys. D Dertot

This last part almost makes it appear that you dont even agree with yourself. "If it is Reality" Really guys.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 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? D Bertot

Again start with the primary definiton, 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. D Bertot

Hi Dawn,Could you try not to respond to individual posts with multiple posts of your own? We limit these threads to ~300 posts so when you make 5-6 short posts to respond to 1 of RAZD's, not to mention a further 3-4 responding to other posts also by RAZD, you are eating through the topics allotted posts very rapidly.TTFN,AWEdited by AdminWounded, : No reason given.Edited by AdminWounded, : No reason given.

You've spread your arguments across so many posts one hardly knows which to address. I certainly hope everyone confines themselves to a single reply for all them.You're also being very confusing by failing to indicate when you're quoting someone else, as here in Message 244 where you quote RAZD without quotes, making it appear as if these are your words: If this was actually your argument then there would be nothing to argue about.Anyway, you're not going to persuade anyone of anything by simply declaring that, in effect, "axioms are automatically true and this is an axiom so therefore it's true." First, axioms are not automatically true, and even if they were, declaring something to be axiomatically true doesn't make it so. In natural science you have to demonstrate something is true, with evidence.--Percy

Thanks, I realize that sometimes I dont communicate it as well as I should. So let me try thias again. It was argued that Axioms involve ASSUMPTIONS. And this was of course is true, Now if you get nothing else out this debate but this, please understand this. 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." Hence the example provided by RAZD.,"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.) Because we already know this, lets move forward confident that the axiom is valid and in contravertable. Again, ASSUMPTIONS validate and complement Axioms, they do not try to test them. Even if you do a test it will cooberate it anyway. "Dead men tell (speak) no tales", etc. D bertot

Admin writes {qs}Could you try not to respond to individual posts with multiple posts of your own? We limit these threads to ~300 posts so when you make 5-6 short posts to respond to 1 of RAZD's, not to mention a further 3-4 responding to other posts also by RAZD, you are eating through the topics allotted posts very rapidly.TTFN,WKD[/qs]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 the problem

Not to be argumenative Ned, but your A-axiom and T-axiom are really the same thing. Again, assumptions directed at axioms are for the purpose of saying, "We know you are true, axiom, without doing any real tests, because you require no proof. you ole axiomatic truth, you". You test hypothesis and probabilities, not axioms.My axioms from 117 is that there are no other possible explanations as to the origins of things. This is an axiom that requires no proof. A designer is one of the possible ecplanations. It establishes itself from a method of science called 'Dedutive reasoning'. Logic. Quibbling with definitons doesnt refute this point. You establish the existence of a designer apart from the religious concept. It involves an axiom that requires no proof.D Bertot

Is Euclid's fifth axiom self-evidently true, self-evidently false, or not self-evident at all?