Tautology... what is it?
472019
Needless repetition of the same sense of different words; redundancy.  An empty statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; ie. - Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.
394545
Logic is not used to ASCERTAIN truth, it is used to reason truth and prove it's fallability.\n\nThe aspect used to ASCERTAIN truth is the question.
557287
If a theory can be proven, then it becomes a proven fact.  I suspect you'll find a lot of denial, even if someone could prove theories like this.
191289
From the times of Euclides, it does two thousand two hundred years already, the mathematicians have tried to divide of certain called statements "axioms" and to deduce after them all class of useful conclusions.\nIn certain aspects it is almost like a game, with two rules. In the first place, the axioms must be less possible. Secondly, the axioms must be consistent. It must be impossible to deduce two conclusions that are contradicted mutually.\nAny book of baccalaureate geometry begins with a set of axioms: by two points nobodies a straight line can only be drawn up; the total is the sum of the parts, etc. During long time one assumed that the axioms of Euclides were the unique ones that could constitute a consistent geometry and that for that reason were "true".\nBut in century XIX it was demonstrated that modifying of certain way the axioms of Euclides different geometries could be constructed, "noneuclidianas". Each one of these geometries differed from the others, but all of them were consistent. From then it did not have sense already to ask which of them was "true". In place, of it it was necessary to ask which was useful.\nIn fact, the sets of axioms are many from which a consistent mathematical system could be constructed: all of them different and all of them consistent ones.\nIn no of those mathematical systems it would have to be possible to deduce, from its axioms, that something is simultaneously thus and not thus, because then the mathematics would not be consistent, it would be necessary to reject them. But what happens if we establish a statement and we verified that we cannot demonstrate that is or thus or not thus?\nLet us suppose that I say: "the statement that I am doing is false."\nIt is false? If it is false, then it is false that it is saying something false and it must be saying something true. But if I am saying something true, then it is certain that I am saying something false and would be truth that I am saying something false. It could be going of a side for another one indefinitely. It is impossible to demonstrate that what I have said is or thus or not thus.\nLet us suppose that we fit the axioms of the logic in order to eliminate the possibility of making statements of that type. We could find another way to make statements of the type "neither thus nor not thus"?\n In 1931 the Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel presented/displayed a valid demonstration that for any set of axioms always it is possible to make statements that, from those axioms, it cannot demonstrate nor that they are thus nor that are not thus. In that sense, it is impossible to never elaborate a set of axioms from which a complete mathematical system can be deduced.\n It means this that never we will be able to find the "truth"? Nor to speak!\n First: the one that a mathematical system is not complete does not mean that what contains it is "false". The system can continue being very useful, whenever we do not try to use it beyond its limits.\n Second: the theorem of Gödel is only applied to deductive systems of the type that is used in mathematics. But the deduction is not the only way to discover the "truth". There are no axioms that allow to deduce the dimensions us of the Solar System. These last ones were obtained by means of observations and measures - another way fairy the "truth".
637043
i believe what you mean are "existential" and "universal" claims. the word existential refers to words such as some, many, few, or any other word which implies the existence of another set which does not contain members for which the "some..." statement is referring to. a universal statement includes the other group of words including all, none, every, etc which do not imply the existence of a group without the attribute referred to by the statement containing the all, every, etc.\n\nthe problem with universal statements involves a "universal generalization" about an entire set based on the existence of a few members which meet the criterion. example. "my dog is red, joes dog is red too, therefore all dogs are red."\n\nthe problem with the existential statements involve "existential instantiation" let me give you an example. "some dogs are red, i have a dog, therefore he is red". "if it rains the sidewalk is wet. the sidewalk is wet so therefore it rained." you see the problem with this line of reasoning\n\nin short \ndont conclude "all a is b" based on "a0 is b"\ndont conclude "a0 is b" based on "some a is b"
914846
So, what is wrong with truth?
1172101
Doesn't sound like you know what ID means let alone irreducible complexity or paley's watchmaker argument to back it up at all and what the hell is your question?  Seems to just be a ignorant claim without any good supporting evidence or logic to back it up.  Keep reading and maybe you'll learn something.
499290
Arc cos(cos y) + Arc sin(sin x) = y + x\n Because arc cos is the inverse function of cos, they cancel each other out; Arc sin is the inverse function of sin; so, they also cancel each other out. therefore, you have:\n y + x = y + x\nBecause that is tautology, you can simplify and have:  \ny + x\nSince addition is communitive and it is proper to place an equation in alphabetical order when possible: \nx + y is the solution.
4008
the formulas are what convince me.  I've had to derive so many complicate formulas myself, and most of them, especially mechanics formulas can be proven, such as measuring a quantities, solving for a missing variable, then doing an experiment and getting the same answer.  This is too much to be a coincedence or something.  Most theories and things are developed before formulas and actual mathamatical relationships are found, then they find them and it all fits together nicely.  Even with reletivity and things with spacetime, there are a lot of concrete formulas, and once you have the satisfaction of deriving them yourself from previously proven formulas... it all clicks nicely, that's why im a physics major, curiosity about everything like this.  I guess human perception can be valid once connections start being made between things, because when ideas are incorrect, they really don't connect to other things very easily.
594914
weirdness.. what is the question????
101623
What does it mean to be "true"? The quantum theory (I suppose that's what you're asking about) can explain a lot of physical experiments, so, up to a certain extent, it has been proven true. It is also the truest physical theory for small scales up to today.\nScience isn't about finding absolute truths, it's about providing a description of reality that suits your needs. Take newton's gravity laws for example: while proven false in absolute by einstein's relativity, they are still really useful and tought in many places.\nOf course the goal is to one day provide a theory (a description of reality, not "a guess") that explains everything, but for now that's still a dream.
1995
If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise?\n\nIt doesn't matter.\n\nTHAT is existential reality.
534639
I cannot begin to grasp what you are asking.\n\nIs it a statement, or a question?
215976
Bravo! What was it?\nAnd what is the thesis of this question? <vbg>
569559
The centrality of goodness demands that it come from One Source.  Are there absolutes?  Is truth a thing that can be relative?\n\nYes, there are absolutes.  Truth is not relative.  What or Who determines truth though?\n\nYou really should find out.
118970
It just relates negation, and, or logical operators to each other:\n\n¬(P&Q) = (¬P)or(¬Q)\n¬(P or Q) = (¬P)&(¬Q)\n\nYou can verify the above relations using the truth tables.\n\nAs {negation, and, or} in logic is in direct correspondence with {complement, intersection, union} There are two formula in set theory named de Morgan's laws:\n\n(A union B)' = A' intersection B'\n(A intersection B)' = A' union B'
1147866
It's not a fair question. Say I was to tell you that I have a 'purple horned snorkstack' in my backyard.\nWould you believe me? No, of course not, only the terminally stupid would believe such an outlandish thing without proof.\nSame thing here.\nWe do not and will not believe in a magic sky-pixie until we have proof. Or at least some sort of credible evidence.\nIt is up to YOU to provide the proof. Not the other way around.\nThat is elementary logic.