>>12297482-To make such claims he must employ logic, so if he is proposing his statement to be true then the statement is self-detonating.
-Abstract logic is fundamentally constructed upon consistent relations in our experience; if it is conceded that logic can arrive at truths, this concession is tantamount to saying that empiricism does as well.
-There are are a small number of apoditic truths — such as the truth of one's own existence — which are 100% certain. These are not axioms, they are empirically self-evident.
So, it's fair to say that most (almost all) knowledge is not apodictic, and that we are typically dealing with probabilities. To claim that there are no absolute/certain truths is wrong however, and these truths are empirically grounded (indeed all possible knowledge is, as empiricism is our only conduit to knowledge). Attempting to undermine logic is also wrong, as demonstrated by the necessity of resorting to logic in the attempt.
As far as probable knowledge goes, the scientific method has by far the best track record in terms of prediction and actionable knowledge (to the extent that there isn't any competition). Given then that empiricism is our only conduit to knowledge, and that science does it best, it seems rather silly/intellectually dishonest to try and shit on it (I suppose you could go radical skeptic and claim that knowledge is all-or-nothing, but that's also silly and self-detonating).
tl;dr there are apodictic (not axiomatic) 'absolute' truths; for the remaining majority of provisional knowledge, science is peerless in apprehending it. Finally, the claim that there are no absolute truths is obviously self-detonating.
