can i say that my axiomatic method is itself an axiom? however, if you don't want to use the axiomatic approach, then how do people agree on "basic assumptions" in discussions? otherwise, the discussants talk past each other from that point, don't they? using your mentor professor as an example, if he takes the axiomatic approach and you reject it, then how can you discuss anything with him?
here's another point: the axiomatic method is THE method for arriving at formal (deductive) and factual (inductive) truth in mathematics and logic, so why can't it be used for other language concepts too? ---------------- justin:
" Btw, "reasoning" is not an "axiom," but a way of getting from some propositions to others. The alternative to reasoning, i.e., producing justified beliefs according to the correct rules of inference, is obviously not reasoning, using the wrong inference rules to produce unjustified beliefs. But maybe you mean that which are the correct rules is up for grabs,which is true to a certain point." -----------------
i always considered the rules of inference as part of the reasoning process, but i'd have to think about it some more before attempting to clarify my position. apparently, you think of reasoning as an "alternative" to rules of inference and vice versa. that confuses me, so can you explain the dichotomy?
however if they are alternatives, as you say, then people have to agree on which to use, don't they? IOW, they have to agree on either to use reasoning or the rules of inference, right?
also, how would you answer yoshie's concerns about "mysteries" in contrast to mine?
BTW, when i said that some people reject "reasoning" (and the rules of reason), i was thinking of people we call "mystics" who arrive at "truths" in other ways.
norm