Monday, October 3, 2016

Axioms, Logical, Dialectical, and Rhetorical

An axiom is a concept that is accepted as true for purposes of establishing further claims. What distinguishes axioms by types or classes is the degree of truth which is considered acceptable.

A logical axiom is one of the Three Aristotelian First Principles of Thought. Those are considered self-evidently true, and they pass the Aristotelian test of Reductio Ad Absurdum. These, plus others such as coherence, grounding, valid form of deduction, are used in the generation of deductive truths - the only form of incorrigible truth.

A dialectical axiom is formed from observations of the material universe, where certain characteristics are found to be self-evidently true within the universe. This includes the three Aristotelian First Principles, as well as material determinism but not the principles of coherence, argument form, arithmetical axioms etc.

A Rhetorical Axiom is demanded by force, where opposition to the principle is demonized and demeaned by being muted due to fear - fear of rejection, fear of being falsely categorized, fear of being defamed, fear of other losses. Silencing is necessary when the axiom is not immutably self-evident as a universal truth or physical law which transcends criticism.

Evolution is a Rhetorical Axiom.

Here's how Jerry Coyne put it in his video, "Why Evolution is True":
If you dissent, then
"you are perverse; you are a moron; you simply can’t understand the nature of evidence; or you are blinded by religion."(3:27)
There is no room for intelligent dissent, because you are placed into one of his Classes, his categories of Ad Hominem Abusive denigrations. Coyne thus is a Class Warrior, who protects his Rhetorical Axiom by placing any other concept into one of his classes of inferior beings. This is an axiom by force of fear of denigration, the common axiom of evolution.

"If you don't believe in evolution you are willfully ignorant."

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

John Maynard Smith:
"Natural selection is the only workable explanation for the beautiful and compelling illusion of 'design' that pervades every living body and every organ. Knowledge of evolution may not be strictly useful in everyday commerce. You can live some sort of life and die without ever hearing the name of Darwin. But if, before you die, you want to understand why you lived in the first place, Darwinism is the one subject that you must study."

The Rhetorical Axiom claims that a principle need not be self-evident to you; it is self-evident to me ("us", the constant if implicit Appeal to Authority), and that is sufficient to remove you from any class of principled, intelligent beings capable of valid thought, purely because you have some disagreement. Thus I need not recognize or address your point of disagreement, because of the source, which I declare non-valid and reprehensible.

In evolution, all criticism is blamed on stupidity, evil, religion, anti-science, insanity, morons and other pejoratives. Given that, there is the additional assumption of no need to address any criticisms, except by invoking "Creationism, stupidity, anti-science, insanity, etc." The Ad Hominem Abusive denigration accusation is seen as sufficient to silence the dissenter, and thus quell the dissent. It works well enough in university settings that jobs and careers have been lost due to dissent.

Further, the axiom of evolution is now protected by a friendly court. That is a protection which is not needed by any REAL science, those which have produced objective yet contingent knowledge to support their hypotheses (which necessary feat evolution cannot perform).

That is the Axiom of Evolution (and the Axiom of human caused global warming). Pure rhetorical Ad Hominem Abusives rather than disciplined, evidentiary, objective disproof of the dissent.


Phoenix said...


How did you get started in Biology and Evolution? Did you take a course? What books have you read until now that has been very helpful in your understanding of Biology and Evolution?

What would you recommend as a short cut to those who are new in this area?

Stan said...

I buy used college textbooks. For instance, if I want a book on molecular Biology, and the most useful text is "X, 6th edition", then I buy X, 5th edition. Students have to have the new edition, so the previous edition is cheap.

The most recent textbook is one which probably is the only one for a course on "The Cambrian Explosion".

But there are many non-textbooks too. I now have too many to list here. They are acquired as the need arises during study and conversation regarding evolution, paleontology, books written by the elders of evolution and other sciences, embryology, micro- and molecular biology, and whatever comes up. I've been acquiring books for a decade and a half, so the need and expense has been spread out, although I'm consistently over my allotted book budget.

So if an autodidact realizes that he needs to know something, there's always the library, but I prefer to own the sources I need for reference. For that reason, too, I don't like on-line books for much.

Phoenix said...

Very interesting, thanks.

Anonymous said...

Anything specific?


Boom said...

he can't be specifics when nothing support his views..................

yonose said...


Going back to the basics huh?

I know. Any sensible commentary, when one says something like:

I think "microevolution" is OK and we see it daily, thus not disproving Evolution Theory as a whole, but I still question the ability of Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection, for the understanding of epigenetics, and how naturopathy (not homeopathy but naturopathy) is actualy solving practical health issues, which could be explained by epigenetics in some concerns...

Then any typical fundamentalist --truly yours-- answers like if I were a devilish heretic, with some key points:

a) You don't understand evolution theory.

b) Science is not for creationists , IDrs, etc.

c) If I say I'm not any of those, then I'm the most obnoxious creationist EVER.

d) If I agree with some portions of ID theory and other aspects of Lamarckian Evolution and agree with microevolution completely, I'm a traitor and believe in superpeudoscience bunk, but then, regardless, not specific of a rebuttal but using obsolete eliminative materialist philosophy. Post-positivist materialists are also that radical, mind you.

e) Mention a Kuhnian crisis to them, and they become crazy telling that there's not such a thing as a paradigm shift according to the book, but yeah, paradigmatic fortresses are defended mainly by emotional and political means, and paradigmatic fortresses are part of any paradigm shift.

e) They don't want to "get back God into science", but then I wonder, don't they religiously worship science as their God??

f) They will claim, as always, that science is about rationality and not bunk and pseudoscience to which it's soo difficult for them to concede that:

Science is not about ideology, politics, point of view, etc. Those are our personal prejudices, and personal, only, which makes us prone to confirmation biases.

Science is a tool, and it can be used from physics to parapsychology in the same way, and any effects which confirm any possible phenomena and whichever possible contingency it might have, from any branch of science, should not be ignored just because.

Take a look at these, tough a bit off-topic, but is relevant for this issue in hand:

Being skeptical about pseudoskeptics

Kind Regards!!!

Boom said...

yonose is confused, help him

Steven Satak said...

Oooh, a drive-by linked to ''. Silly twit.

Steven Satak said...

"Boom" needs to be directed to the nearest exit. Please help him. Her. It. Whatever.

Steven Satak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven Satak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JBsptfn said...

Yeah, Boom, I think that you should go to The Skeptic Zone at And, tell them that I (JBSptfn) sent you. They just LOOOOVVEE us (lol).

Boom said...

what the heck does The Skeptic Zone at mean? do you mean a blog called The Skeptic Zone?

who's us? why go there? why are you so stupid and not funny but write lol

JBsptfn said...

Yes, it is a blog. And, you should go there because that's where the trolls belong.

Boom said...

you did not answer, who's us? What group are you part of, and why does it matter? JBsptfn you sound like the trolls... Phoenix asked for sources, gets none from the OP, but still is happy, 2 idiots! some anonymous asked for specifics, got no answer, nobody cares. yonose sound stupid, ignorant, another idiot. steven writes an insult, you JB write just silly things, so ARE YOU 2 THE TROLLS? is that what you are part of? you are just trolling that site here? the OP is that stupid that he lets you comment with shit like that?

yonose said...


How sad it is to be emotionally projective about the presupposed ignorance of other people, who have different worldviews than yourself.

A different belief system which leads to such an emotional tirade. You don't know me well enough, and then I'm being accused of idiocy?

When did I say, Boom == idiot(s)?

Oh, the irony. Booms are the perfect personification of Eiron.

One thing is how I subjectively sound to you... but then I wonder, isn't just merely personal prejudices??

Kind Regards!!

Boom said...

what you wrote was stupid yes!! incoherent random thoughts, from someone who thinks questioning evolution is healthy skepticism, but you do it wrong, completely wrong, willfully ignorant

yonose said...


I just question Darwinian Evolution, and specifically, natural selection, not as a theory. As with any theory, deserves its place, even in history. But as the logical catergory it is posited nowadays, Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection is not the be all and end all of everything. A full-fledged Paradigmatic Fortress.

That just sound like a religious cult, or like any radical, war-mongering political party.

What about expert people who think about Lamarck and "Self-directed processes" in evolution?

Don't be Lazy and click here!

Theological aspects are not in the domain of science, but alas, Science is a tool, not your worldview, not my worldview.

Science may be well done from Physics to Parapsychology, whether you like it or not, and that counts for another view of Evolution than the Darwinian one, too.

"..from someone who thinks questioning evolution is healthy skepticism...

I question what I see fit, and give my arguments expecting good questioning and rebuttal, or a fruitful conversation at best. You don't do so.

You are one of the people who best describe the archetype in the literal a) of my first post in this comment thread.

Prejudicial people, well, there are many nowadays. Sensing people who like spouting intra-subjectively senseless banter... well, that's priceless!!

Anyway, nice to know you exist. I concede you the last word, I don't care :) people's beliefs disguised as supposed disbeliefs are not of my concern.

Kind Regards :)

Boom said...

yonose, if you question natural selection, you are a complete moron,
read the link you attached, nobody thinks natural selection does not happen, they only argue that it's not the only thing that happens

Steven Satak said...

@Boom: if you resort to insult, you automatically invalidate anything else you write. Did you know that? Or don't you care?

yonose said...


Quoting Myself, emphasis mine:

"I just question Darwinian Evolution, and specifically, natural selection, not as a theory. As with any theory, deserves its place, even in history. But as the logical catergory[sic] it is posited nowadays, Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection is not the be all and end all of everything."

Learn to read the opposition instead of taking refuge in ideological pseudoskepticism.

Do you think I would be stupid enough not to read what I post here?

Prejudicial people are going into laughably low standards of reason... the reason of unreasonable people is theirs only. Ironic, isn't it?

Again Science is not about worldviews, and from Physics to Parapsychology, it demonstrably works.

Don't take my word for granted, especially when you can insult people behind teh tubes, knowing that you'll probably never want to come and face me.

My apologies, it's just funny. I'll become more serious when adults come into my conversation table.

At least I can concede that if you want to be a New Atheist Superstar (it's acronym is NAS, just like a piece of network infrastructure, amazing, huh?), then you'll make my Life easier :)

Love ya and see ya!

Kind Regards.