However what RAZ seems to be saying (in his rather ridiculously worded replies) is that the scientifically evidenced conclusion is logically (i.e. deductively) consistent with the scientific evidence.
This is of course pointlessly tautological.
If you define RAZD's position as this then, yes, this is tautological.
But I see RAZD as saying something different:
"The conclusion is logically (i.e. deductively) consistent with the scientific evidence."
Which is not tautological and is quite realistic.
The problem I see in RAZD is he does not apply this viewpoint consistently. And because he is not consistent in this, and trying to resolve the disconnect, he has talked himself into this inane "100% certainty" position.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
