The laws of logic are self-evident.

Thanks, Con. I'll begin with Con's example regarding carbon sublimating at 3800ï¿½ C. His point was that this fact would be evident whether anyone had experienced (learned?) it or not, and a such, that alone is not enough to make it self-evident fact. Con is 100% correct. Indeed objective reality exists outside of ourselves, so that fact would be true regardless of our experience. The only reason I mentioned experience in the first place was because my opponent was the one who said in the previous round that experience proves certain laws. I explained how that was not the case, and most certainly not the case in regard to self-evident laws. Nowhere did I ever say that experience proved anything, so Con has completely strawmanned my argument, and actally took his own wrong argument and proved how it was wrong. On that note, we can see where Con's analogy regarding the carbon fails. He writes, "Nobody decided to just say that carbon would sublimate at a given temperature; it just does, and we have proven it to do so, and therefore know it to do so. One cannot disprove this scientific fact, but carbon's sublimation point is still not self-evident. Therefore, what my opponent says, while true, does not intrinsically make her statement self-evident." Ladies and gentlemen, that is a complete misrepresentation of my argument. I never said that everything which has been proven true was self-evident. I gave only THREE, count 'em, THREE laws or facts that are proven to be self-evident, therefore Con's example is irrelevant. In the previous rounds, I have explained on numerous occasions that something is self-evident because it proves itself. In no way has the sublimating temperature of carbon ever proved itself. To come up with this information, scientists have used other pieces of evidence and experimentation - perhaps even the Proof of Exhaustion method - and thus Con's point here is moot. He has ignored the reason behind what actually makes something self-evident, and instead presented an analogy which does not fit the criteria at all. Next, Con writes, "I have never agreed that axioms are self-evident. I don't see where my opponent gets that conclusion, and she didn't do a very good job at explaining." In the last round, my opponent's very first paragraph states: An axiom is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Con provided and sourced this definition. An axiom by its very definition is self-evident. Now we get to the heart of the debate. Con responds to the law of identity saying that the definition of "book" is how we can prove that something is a book. However, that is an insufficient argument. In order to define something, there must be something to define. Even if you define book as "a set of written sheets bound together into a volume," the law of identity states that a book is a book because that's exactly what it is: a set of written sheets bound together into a volume. In other words, when we say that something has an identity, we are saying that it has a specific nature. So, in calling something a book, you're acknowledging that it possesses the nature of written sheets bound together in a volume. It's not just applying the definition, but accepting it for what it is. Aristotle was the first to explicitly formulate the law of identity. He and just about every single major (and minor) philosopher after him accept that this law is axiomatic and self-evident; it is considered the most certain of all principles. It has never been proven untrue in classic logic. Indeed, it forms the foundation of a coherent philosophical system [1]. The law of identity can be described as saying that everything is identical to itself. Obviously utilizing a simple definition does not give you the same result or understanding as the law of identity. You can define something, but to accept the law of identity as self-evident is to go far beyond implementing or understanding the definition. The definition itself is irrelevant to the role that this law actually serves in philosophy, which is to assert that while a book maybe defined as a set of written sheets bound together in a volume, that it actually IS a set of written sheets bound together in a volume. And, of course, while Book A and Book B may both be books by definition, Book A = Book A, and Book B = Book B; they are both identical to themselves, and while both are books, they are not identical to each other. Further, Con writes that because Aristotle notes that each thing is inseparable from itself, and it's 'being' alone proved this, that it sounds like a proof for the Law of Identity. He says, "If Aristotle has to be dragged in to explain something, then it's not evidencing itself." However, you'll notice that Aristotle merely explained exactly why the law is self-evident. If my opponent agrees with that - which he should - then it only proves my case. Aristotle didn't provide outside evidence for the law, but merely explained why the law was evidence in and of itself... hence being self-evident! Moving on to the second and third laws, I'm not sure what Con's explanation regarding the Proof of Exhaustion is. The PoE is already clearly defined, and whatever Con explained it as in the last round is wrong. I've defined and explained the Proof of Exhaustion system in the last round. You cannot change the systematic laws of certain principles to fit an agenda. As I have explained, the PoE is completely irrelevant to the laws of self-identity. You can use the PoE to prove something, and may even use it to prove the 3 axioms I have provided as true; however, simply because those 3 axioms may be proven in other ways in no way negates the fact that they are still evidence for themselves; they are self-evident. Next Con writes, "My opponent again claims that if something cannot be countered without assuming it to be true, then it must be self-evident. However, this looks more like a proof of validity than a proof of self-evidence, as a proof of self-evidence by definition cannot exist." I would like for Con to please explain or rather prove to me how self-evidence by definition cannot exist. In fact, I will prove to you right now that this is a false statement -- In epistemology, a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof [2]. As you can see, there is a definition for this term and this term does in fact exist. The three laws that I have mentioned prove that self-evidence exists. Regarding his intended syllogism, you'll notice that Con says, "Through deductive reasoning, I realize that B must be true..." However, all form of reasoning is based on logic, and all logic is based on the 3 self-evident axioms that I have provided. So, when Con asks, "Well, my opponent did prove the law of identity through deductive reasoning, did she not?" The answer is yes - because reasoning is based on logic, and logic is based on these 3 self-evident axioms. Nevertheless, here is an actual comprehensive syllogism derived not from classical logic (since I won't use logic to explain itself - hehe) but rather propositional logic [3]: 1. (A & ~A) [Proposition] 2. A [Conjunction elimination from 1] 3. ~A [Conjunction elimination from 1] 4. ~(A & ~A) [Reductio 1 - 3] That said, Con's conclusion is FALSE. He writes, "For something to be self-evident, it must be known WITHOUT proof, and as it is known WITH proof, it cannot be self-evident." Again - the axioms I mentioned prove themselves! Yes, they require proof, but if they can prove themselves (which I have demonstrated and Con has not and can not negate), then they are indeed self-evident. [1] http://talbenshahar.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://editthis.info...