I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.

What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :

"all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven."

Does this statement apply to itself?

Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.

It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:

All conclusions are based on unproven axioms

which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).

This fundamental unprovability in the beginnings of all formal systems of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.

The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.

Statements such as I have made, even though they are tautological, can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.

But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.

This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.

The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension of what the processes of reason are designed to do, and how they are constructed.

I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.

What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :

"all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven."

Does this statement apply to itself?

Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.

It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:

All conclusions are based on unproven axioms

which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).

This fundamental improvability in the beginnings of all formal systems of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.

The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.

Statements such as I have made, even though they are tautological, can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.

But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.

This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.

The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension of what the processes of reason are designed to do, and how they are constructed.

I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.

What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :

"all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven."

Does this statement apply to itself?

Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.

It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:

All conclusions are based on unproven axioms

which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).

This fundamental improvability in the beginnings of all formal processes of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.

The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.

Statements such as I have made, even though they are tautological, can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.

But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.

This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.

The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension of what the processes of reason are designed to do, and how they are constructed.

I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.

What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :

"all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven."

Does this statement apply to itself?

Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.

It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:

All conclusions are based on unproven axioms

which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).

This fundamental improvability in the beginnings of all formal processes of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.

The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.

Statements such as I have made, even though they are tautological, can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.

But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.

This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.

The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension of what the processes of reason are designed to do, and how they are constructed.

I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.

What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :

"all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven."

Does this statement apply to itself?

Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.

It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:

All conclusions are based on unproven axioms

which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).

This fundamental improvability of any process of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.

The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.

Statements such as I have made, even though they are tautological, can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.

But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.

This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.

The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension of what the processes of reason are designed to do, and how they are constructed.

I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.

What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :

"all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven."

Does this statement apply to itself?

Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.

It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:

All conclusions [that are logically consistent] are based on unproven axioms

which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).

This fundamental improvability of any process of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.

The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.

Statements such as I have made, even though they are tautological, can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.

But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.

This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.

The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension of what the processes of reason are designed to do, and how they are constructed.

I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.

What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :

"all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven."

Does this statement apply to itself?

Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.

It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:

All conclusions are based on unproven axioms

which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).

This fundamental improvability of any process of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.

The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.

Statements such as I have made, even though they are tautological, can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.

But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.

This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.

The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension of what the processes of reason are designed to do, and how they are constructed.

I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.

What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :

"all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven."

Does this statement apply to itself?

Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.

It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:

All conclusions are based on unproven axioms

which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).

This fundamental improvability of any process of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.

The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.

Statements such as I have made, even though they are tautological, can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.

But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.

This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.

The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension.

I realize after your response that I replied in the way I did not because it wasn't a good question, but because I wanted to be lazy; a thorough elaboration takes a bit of effort. For that I apologize. In thinking about it, a not so thorough elaboration is not that much effort.

What you are touching on is a fundamental flaw in logical processes (flaw isn't quite the right word, but see below) :

"all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven."

Does this statement apply to itself?

Yes, it applies to itself. It is not an error in logic, but a tautology. In fact it is the fundamental tautology from which we derive the process of reason, which I will show using how it was discovered in math.

It was once believed (and formally stated by David Hilbert) that math could tell us the absolute truth. This was disproven, using math, by Kurt Godel in his first Imcompleteness Theorem, which showed explicitly that logic was not complete, and in his second Incompleteness Theorem, which showed that it couldn't be proven that logic was consistent. This was followed up by Alan Turing, who showed that logic is undecidable. One of the problems is that we must start somewhere, and that somewhere is by its very nature, tautological. The statement you are calling out is not logically incorrect, it is simply a tautology, or rather, it would be if you took out the second part, which is an addition, and not a part of the beginning axiom, which is:

All conclusions are based on unproven axioms

which itself is based on an unproven axiom (in this case it is unprovable).

This fundamental improvability of any process of reason (logos) is just one reason (cause) why it mustn't be trusted to tell us the truth.

The problem is in confusing what is truth (in an absolute sense) and what is useful.

Statements such as I have made can be very useful for the creation of an argument. Not to say that I have presented one, but such an argument can even be profound and lead to deeper insight. In that way they are useful.

But the Truth is WHATEVER IT IS. It defies our attempts at defining it, or putting it into a box. So we can't trust our arguments, no matter how profound they seem, to be telling us the truth, because they can't, not even in principle. But we can use them to get closer to the truth, as that is their real design.

This doesn't mean that all arguments, no matter how well formed, nor how well they appear to align with reality, are actually leading us in the right direction. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of very good logical constructions or models that have been very useful and very persistent, but have ultimately been thought to be endeavors in the wrong direction from the actual Truth.

The confusion between "truth" and "usefulness" in our processes of reason suggests a flaw. But it's not a flaw, it's just a misapprehension.