>>14345273No
All knowledge derives from axiomatic grounding, circular logical reasoning, or infinite series of syllogisms. By definition. There is no other ground for syllogisms to be defined.
This means that information can't be a priori determined via syllogism without assumptions. At some point it must be grounded in an assumption. The most common assumption is "my qualitative experience of something is true", but it's still an assumption. Your entire life could be a very elaborate and realistic dream. You cannot a priori prove your qualitative experience is real, and considering all your knowledge of how to recognize and exit dreams has been acquired during the course of this very long dream, you can't evaluate it its "dreaminess" by anything you know of.
David Hume famously argued for empiricism, but nothing in Hume's arguments proves that Empiricism is valid as a form of knowledge without the use of axiom. Just that, barring those things that are definitely knowable beyond axiom + syllogism, empiricism is the best and most effective method of understanding a phenomena, to the exclusion of things like revelation.
