On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 13:37:50 -0000
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> > Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are
> > not to be 'agreed' upon. Also, axioms can be proven. If axioms
> > couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would
> > be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera.
>
> From the CRC Encyclopedia of Mathematics:
>
> "AXIOM: A proposition regarded as self-evidently true,
Axioms being self-evidently true means that if you choose to
DENY them, you need to USE them in the denial process
anyway, therefore proving that they ARE true. Try assuming that
the so called identity principle is not 'true' and see where
you get.
I don't need to invoke internet authority or the sacred
wikipedia scriptures xorcist. I can explain what an axiom in my
own words.
So no, truth and logic still are not a matter of agreement, and
axioms are not arbitrary if that's what you are trying to
suggest.
And even going by that definition, if axioms are self-evidently
TRUE, then people who don't 'agree' that they are true are
self-evidently...troubled.
(and by the way, your first source is about mathematics, not
logic or philosophy in general)
> without proof.
> The word "axiom" is a slightly archaic synonym for 'postulate'.
> Compare 'conjecture' or 'hypothesis', both of which connote
> apparently true but not self-evident statements."
>
> From the Wiki:
> An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to
> serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and
> arguments. ...
> Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be
> derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by
> mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there
> is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would
> be classified as theorems.
>
>
>
>
