The Epistemology of Cosmology

An Axiom, as you likely already know, is a principle so foundational that it's truth is self-evident. In earlier posts, however, an axiom is defined better as: "A proposition formally accepted without demonstration, proof, or evidence as one of the starting-points for the systematic derivation of an organized body of knowledge." http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a9.htm#axiom In current intellectual society, to employ the use of an axiom is somewhat frowned upon, because an axiom is not subject to empirical investigation. When the vital element of experience is taken out of the picture, things begin to be less evident and thoughts begin to take on a chimerical aspect. However, just because something cannot be experienced, does not mean that that something does not exist. Proof for that something, instead of being found in experienced based empiricism, may be found in logically based rationalism. An axiom, upon a test of validity, must be proved by rationalistic means.

Rationalism and logic, although at times dubious compared to empiricism and experience, is vastly superior when contemplating anything outside of possible experience. Empirically, mankind will never know the extent of the universe, and empirically mankind cannot watch evolution at play, and empirically mankind cannot watch and measure a single star be born, live, and die. If mankind is to know anything about such things, it will be through the use of logic and rationalism.
Therefore, the eleven axioms, as posted to this blog cannot be validated by getting on a space shuttle, and flying as far as possible to see if the universe really is infinite, or if it's just one giant fishbowl. If these axioms are to be disproved, it must be through logical argument.