On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 21:38:33 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>In article <email@example.com>, > Lester Zick <DontBother@nowhere.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:44:00 -0300, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" >> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> >In <email@example.com>, on 07/13/2006 >> > at 10:15 AM, lDontBother@nowhere.net said: >> > >> >>Isn't everyone? >> > >> >No, only the fools. >> > >> >>The only reason for axioms is that people are too lazy >> >>or stupid to demonstrate the truth of their assumptions. >> >> You seem to have picked up an isolated comment of mine. >> >> >ROTF,LMAO! You can't prove *anything* without assumptions. >> > >> >*PLONK* >> >> Well certainly you can't prove anything true with assumptions of >> truth. I guess that means you can't prove much of anything >> mathematically or otherwised except consistency with your assumptions >> of truth. > > >If one assumes that there are self evident truths, one has started with >an assumption, and if one doesn't, then one must start by assuming >something else.
Thanks for the assumption. You're conflating two different issues: whether one has to start somewhere by assumption and whether where one starts by assumption is demonstrably true. Conventionally one starts with axiomatic assumptions and extrapolates various theorems demonstrably consistent those axiomatic assumptions. However proof for the axiomatic assumptions is generally ignored or appeals are made to common sense dialectics instead of formal demonstration followed by naive assertions that no alternative methodology is possible for no better reason than we have to start somewhere by assumption and are too lazy or stupid to figure out how to demonstrate the truth of our initial assumptions.