Any thinking person would know and understand that such a truth, of this axiom is incontravertable by simple observation
Correct. And here we find the chink in your argument.
An axiom is something that is accepted as true by concensus, meaning that is is considered with high confidence to be true based on past
observation and/or testing, or just for the sake of argument (could be true, but needs further validation which the predictions of the axiom in the context of the argument may provide).
"Dead men tell no tales" (in the way you define "tell") is only accepted as "true" because of past observation and testing. The fact that physical corpses cannot speak is only accepted as true because it has been repeatedly observed that physical corpses do not speak. You definition of "axiom" requires
no proof, however, something, anything that is accepted as true needed proof in order to be accepted as "true." Nothing is accepted as true without some kind of "proof."
Your "axiom," however, can still be invalidated if ever there comes a time when a physical corpse speaks.
You proposed, in the parent thread, that a supernatural creator who designed all life was an "axiom." I think that you think that an axiom is something which cannot be refuted (and therefore needs no proof). You are correct in one aspect. In an argument (or a scientific hypothesis) an "axiom" needs no proof. It must stand on its own as a premise in order to see where the argument goes (meaning that is must be at least common sensically plausible). It is accepted as true (either based on previous testing, observation, or just as a common sense idea), but if further investigation shows that conclusions based on the axiom are invalid, then the axiom is more than likely not true (depending on multiple, independent confirmation and open to new data).
Now, in pure logic, as many here have explained to you, an argument can be valid (meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises), but that doesn't make it absolutely 100% true.
The premises have to be
shown to be "true" in order for the conclusion to be "true" (i.e in order for the argument to be sound). And the conclusion is still subject to further testing. If the premises and the conclusion are all shown to be "true," then the logical arguent is sound. And, even then, something may come along later on to invalidate either the premises or the conclusion or all of it. None of it is True.
And this is where your problem lies. You have been told, or developed on your own, the idea that logic solves everything. If you knew anything about logic you would not be so quick to believe that. Yes, we're confronted by Spock who is supposed to be the "scientific, rational" character on Star Trek, but Spock (sorry to inform you) is not a real person and his lines were written by screenwriters and not logicians or scientists or even theologians.
We often hear phrases like "logically speaking" or "it's only logical" but do you, Dawn Bertot, really know what those phrases mean? Logic is not common sense. Logic, all by itself, is not adequate to explain the world we live in. You can try and it might make sense in your head, but the sense in your head is not enough to explain the world around us. The logic and the "axioms" must be tested to make sure they correspond to reality.
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -
The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea