The use of logic in establishing truths

So you're saying that even for something that is self-evident to everyone, because everyone could be wrong it still can't be considered axiomatic, which means that Dawn Bertot's criteria for being axiomatic is incorrect?--Percy

We need to agree about definitions. If we're talking about axioms in natural science, as the title of this thread along with its history suggests, then we need to use the definition of axiom used in natural science. This is from Wikipedia: I don't think this definition is very clear, and I like better what Answers.com has to say in its 3rd definition: I think there's a wide range of interpretation about what Dawn is doing, but it seems to me that Dawn is attempting to draw logical conclusions about the real world which he then declares to be axioms that are incontrovertibly true. He doesn't seem to understand that axioms are starting points, not conclusions. Axioms are usually concisely expressed fundamental concepts or assumptions, such as Euclid's 1st postulate ("Any two distinct points define a straight line")."Dead men tell no tales" is not what we would normally in science consider an axiom, but it could be an axiom if used as a fundamental starting point for some line of logical argument:

1. Dead men tell no tales.
2. We need to keep the crime secret.
3. Spike wants to go to the police and tell his story.
4. If we kill Spike, then the crime will remain secret.

The problem, as many have pointed out, is that axioms are not incontrovertibly true. Forensics, which someone already mentioned in this thread, could be sufficient for the murder victim to tell his tale to the police, enabling them to trace the crime to the murderers. And even just the fact of a murder tells a tale ("Someone's trying to cover up something," figures the detective). "Dead men don't talk" might be a better axiom, as has also been pointed out.Whether explicitly stated or not, those who have argued here against the "incontrovertibly true" portion of Dawn's argument are making a point about the tentativity of scientific knowledge of the natural world. By definition, nothing in science is "incontrovertibly true", so if by some logical process directed at the natural world Dawn convinces himself that ID is "incontrovertibly true", then ID's lack of tentativity rules it out as science.--Percy

But you don't use this definition you say you like. An "evident truth which does not need any explanation and is accepted without any demonstration or proof" requires no evidence or study or argumentation. What you're calling an axiom, that ID explains the diversity of life, is actually the end result of a process of logical thinking. Which is fine, it just isn't an axiom. The other problem with your logic is that it is not connected to the natural world through observation and experiment. I didn't like the Wiki definition as much as the Answers.com because it wasn't as clear, not because the definitions differ. Read the definitions again and you'll see they say the same thing, here they are: The definitions are the same, but I prefer the Answers.com definition because it is more clear. Answers.com manages to avoid awkward phrases like "natural sciences theories" and "application domain" that appear in the Wiki definition, and Wiki's qualifying sentence about applicability depending upon an arbitrary choice of axioms introduces confusion instead of clarity.But again, the definitions are the same. I provided the 3rd definition from Answers.com, and so you're asking about the first two. I guess you're browser isn't working? Anyway, here's the full Answers.com entry: Obviously definition 3 is the one most applicable to logic as it might be employed by science, and it's the one that corresponds to Wiki's definition of logic in the domain of science.What we see is that you do not use the definition you say that you "like very much", because you go on to say: If you're claiming that an axiom is actually the result of a process of deductive reasoning operating upon evidence from the real world, then you're wrong. That's not an axiom, it's a conclusion. I'm using science's definition of tentativity, the one set out by Popper years ago. It means that no scientific knowledge can ever be 100% certain, that it is always open to possible falsification. Nothing in science is ever "incontrovertibly true". If you're using a different definition of tentativity then you're not doing science. Once again this makes clear how much your declarations about ID are not axioms. If they're the result of a process of scientific investigation, then they couldn't possibly an axiom. Axioms are starting points, conclusions are ending points. This isn't the thread for a discussion about the definition of science, but while science does involve the gathering of evidence just as you say, more importantly it involves generalizing from the evidence to formulate theories from which predictions can be made that, if successful, provide increasing confidence that perhaps we are discovering something that is actually true about the real world. Whether or not axioms are part of the scientific process isn't what we're discussing. What we're discussing is your misunderstandings of axioms, logic and science.--PercyPS - Google toolbar provides a spellchecker for Internet Explorer, and Firefox has a built in spellchecker.

Hi Dawn,Let me try to restate our objection to the "Dead men tell no tales" issue very succinctly.The objection isn't that we don't accept that "Dead men tell no tales."The objection is that if axioms require that something be "self-evident" or "incontrovertibly true", then that is a very high standard. In fact, it is such a high standard that even a statement like "Dead men tell no tales" doesn't qualify as self-evident or incontrovertibly true. The mere fact that there's a difference of opinion about whether "Dead men tell no tales" is self-evident argues conclusively that it is not self-evident. If it were really self-evident there would be no argument. It is the absence of an argument that would be an indication of possible self-evidence. Once there's an argument it obviously cannot be self-evident.Think about what self-evident means. It means evident to the self without any outside influences. Anything that requires that someone argue with you before you're persuaded is not self-evident, it is self-persuaded-by-somebody-else-evident, and therefore not an axiom.The reason you're getting an argument about something that seems so self-evident to you is that most of the people here are approaching this from a scientific perspective, and within science there is almost nothing that is axiomatic. The principle of tentativity allows no other conclusion. The only axioms in science are those that actually define science, such as its focus on the natural world, or the accepted belief that physical laws apply equally throughout all space and time (and some scientists believe this isn't necessarily true).As has also been pointed out, "Dead men tell no tales" is hopelessly ambiguous, and this is a one reason why many are rejecting this as axiomatic. This ambiguity is another problem that you should address. I know you don't feel it is ambiguous, but if you have to keep explaining to multiple people precisely what it means then that indicates that quite likely it is ambiguous.--Percy

So just like the Discovery Institute, is it your position that science should be redefined to include the supernatural? That would explain a lot about why you're arguing as you are.We're not using some special definition of science. Our definition of science is the same one employed by scientists everywhere around the globe of all races and religions. Science is natural, falsifiable, replicable, predictive, with the goal of building theoretical frameworks of understanding around bodies of evidence. You're misunderstanding the principle of tentativity. The fact that no knowledge is certain doesn't mean we possess no knowledge. But in science no knowledge or theory approaches 100% certainty. There are no axioms (or at least very few axioms) within science.But scientific knowledge in which we are able to establish great confidence through experimentation that verifies theoretical predictions becomes accepted. It never becomes established as true beyond doubt. That would never happen in science. Tentativity requires that nothing ever be accepted as 100% certain within science.That you misunderstand science and logic and axioms is made clear by your lengthy exercise attempting to elevate the "Dead men tell no tales" folk saying to an incontrovertibly true scientific axiom. Have you ever even heard of a scientific axiom? We have a gravitational theory, not a gravitational axiom. We have Einstein's theory of relativity, not Einstein's axiom of relativity. We have Boyle's Law and thermodynamic laws, not Boyle's axiom or thermodynamic axioms. What you're attempting to do is so wrong in so many ways its no wonder that the responses are spread all over the map.--Percy

When JB says gravity he means the force of the gravitation field, which of course varies widely.When you say gravity you mean the gravitational constant, which is considered a universal constant.You both seem to be making accurate statements that neither of you should be arguing with.--Percy

Random mutation not only doesn't require a designer, it would take a massive effort on the part of any supposed designer to keep it from happening. Reproductive events require copying of the DNA, and the copying is almost never perfect. Imperfect copying is what causes random mutations.You phrase this next part as rebuttal as if you thought we disagreed with you: As you stated elsewhere in your post, axioms belong to mathematics. Random mutations belong to science, and I think everyone here except Dawn Bertot would agree that logic alone can not provide much if any support for random mutations. Science requires evidence. Within science logic is only a tool to assist in the analysis and interpretation of evidence.--Percy

We probably don't want to go down this rathole in this thread. Entire threads have been devoted to what random really means. Whether random means uncaused or not is not the topic of this thread.All random means in this context is that information making it possible to predict what would happen is not available to the observer. It doesn't mean to imply whether or not such information actually exists. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but whatever the case it isn't relevant to this thread.--Percy

I really, really hope we drop the discussion of randomness.New members like Lucy should be aware that threads are closed shortly after they reach 300 posts. Too many short off-topic posts quickly use up the thread.--Percy

In this thread? Unless you can connect randomness to the topic, randomness seems like a discussion for another thread.Don't encourage Lucy. His previous posts in this thread weren't on topic either, they were a digression about gravity.--Percy

NJ, I repeat: Unless I've suddenly forgotten how to write English, the above should communicate the idea that I don't believe randomness is connected to the topic, and that because Lucy has already demonstrated a propensity for going off-topic it probably isn't wise to act as an enabler.Now, maybe I'm wrong about this, so what any response to my post should address is how randomness is actually on-topic. Just repeating your opinion that we should explore the subject of randomness doesn't say anything about why it's not off-topic.--Percy

Hi Dawn,We're already familiar with your position, so redescribing it from scratch isn't helpful. Ad hominem, ignoring rebuttals, and declaring that you've already demonstrated everything isn't helpful, either, being more indicative that you're out of ammo than anything else.The bottom line remains unchanged. Logic by itself says nothing about the real world. Unless you can connect logic to reality through observation and experiment you have nothing.And if there are any scientific axioms out there then there are very, very few of them. Attempting to elevate the "Dead men tell no tales" folk saying into an incontrovertibly true scientific axiom only highlights your misunderstandings. The fabric of scientific theories are spun from observations and experiments, not from axioms. If you think axioms play some significant role in science, then why don't you name some?--Percy

Hi Dawn,You keep contradicting yourself. First you say: This says that facts cannot be established from logic alone. Then later you say: This says that facts can be established from logic alone, the opposite of what you just said.Science deals in facts and theoretical frameworks. If you want to talk about reality, then that's what you have to deal with.I know others have mentioned your problems with typing/spelling, and in case you're interested in addressing the problem, Google Toolbar has a spellchecker (Google Toolbar) and Firefox does spellchecking right in the text box as you type (Firefox Website).--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Lucy and Crashfrog,Uh, you guys do realize that unless you can tie the definition of random into the topic that you're off-topic. Persistently off-topic.--Percy

The topic is "The use of logic in establishing truths". Using some of the words of the thread's title in your arguments is not the same thing as being on-topic. Why don't you propose your own thread?--Percy