1. without the ability to test your claim against reality, and if it has no external justification then you can not distinguish dogma from non dogma because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

2. You can not test a math axiom itself against reality by definition and it has no external justification because utility and consistency can still work and be found inside of a false axiom.

This is a critique of the axiomatic method itself. There is no external justification for it.

But i can provide external justification for no axiomatic method: you can test claims themselves against reality

Any thoughts on this? I spoke with 4D geometry expert Dr. Jeffery Weeks who said he hasn't seen it presented this way before.

This is how 4D geometry is used in practical applications like 3D animation, but there hasn't been a pedagogical shift that compels 4D geometers and educators to share this view. There is very little writing about it.