Scientific Knowledge

Hi PaulK, If you want to, I can show you how these are shown to be "logically invalid" with the absence, or without sufficient, supporting evidence (the noted condition). Are you claiming that we do not have objective evidence that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories?Are you claiming that this is not a fact?Are you claiming that this concept {that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories} is not tested and validated every time a person picks up any one of the books, reads it, puts it down and goes about their everyday life with the belief it is fiction rather than fact? That nobody seems concerned enough about Death Eaters and the like to start investigations to uncover them? Amusingly the existing objective evidence is that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories. Do you have any objective evidence that contradicts this?Now you can make up stuff all day, PaulK, but the argument is that Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories, and the evidence supports that.Do you agree that there is objective evidence that {Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories} ... and that you do NOT have objective evidence that {Lord Voldemort does actually exist} - evidence that would contradict the concept that {Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories}?Do you agree that there is supporting evidence and no contradictory evidence that {Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories}?Would you say that the concept {Lord Voldemort is a fictional character, created by an author, and used in a series of intentional fictional fantasy stories} is a

2. Low Confidence Concept - Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
3. Medium Confidence Concept - Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, a scientific hypothesis that has not (yet) been tested, that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or that is still in development
4. High Confidence Concept - Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

Curiously, I place it between III and IV -- where do you place it? Yes, you can choose to be illogical -- that is faith (belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence) -- but you can't then claim that your position is not illogical.Enjoy.

Hi PaulK Okay then, here it is: Exactly -- it shows that the conclusion is groundless, and there is no indication that it can be true or false. You might as well be guessing. Correct -- the premises can be false. Structure doesn't tell you whether the premises are true or not. In other words it appeals to their confirmation bias, and then the logical fallacy of an "Appeal to Popularity" makes it true?
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/pop.htm The devil can cite scripture. The truth or falseness of the conclusion is external to the logic structure - it is based on the real-world evidence. The logical structure of a valid argument is like a mathematical equation, rather than objective analysis. They are used as tools to reach conclusions that -- in science -- are supported by objective evidence and testing. And this is just shy of the logical fallacy of the part for the whole and instead slides into the logical fallacy of omission (of the rest of the picture). Yes, inductive logic plays A part, but the backbone of scientific reasoning is testing and evaluating the evidence deductively, not making up hypothesis.Correct, inductive logic is not deductive logic and doesn't meet the requirements of validity for deductive logic.In science we look at some initial set of {evidence\data\information} and make an hypothetical guess⁽¹⁾ to explain it. This is the hypothesis being derived by inductive logic.We look at the {evidence\data\information} A_a and see that it is also B_a: and infer (inductive logic) the explanation -- the hypothesis -- that This then leads us to make falsification tests:

1. Is there an A₁ ≠ B?
2. Is there a B₂ ≠ A?

Finding either one invalidates the hypothesis, and this invalidation is due to deductive logic not inductive logic. We then go back, find another common denominator element that explains the new information, and make a new hypothetical guess⁽²⁾ ... ... and repeat the test process.IF on the other hand,

1. All A_tested = B and
2. All B_tested = A

THEN we deduce that the hypothesis does explain the new{evidence\data\information} and thus validates the hypothesis.We do NOT conclude that the hypothesis is true (inductive logic).We DO conclude that the hypothesis is valid for the known {evidence\data\information}, but may not be true for additional evidence\data\information (deductive logic).AND we have grown the size of the {evidence\data\information} set, the size of the red area has grown ... ... and start again with new tests, to develop new {evidence\data\information} that is evaluated deductively.

• tree (a) is a pine tree ∴ (initial hypothesis) all trees are pine trees
• tree (b) is a cypress, it is not a pine tree ∴ (new hypothesis)all trees are conifers
• tree (c) is a fir, it is a conifer ∴ (valid hypothesis) all trees are conifers
• tree (d) is an aspen ... etc

The rest has already been addressedEnjoy

---

Notes:
⁽¹⁾ - an informed guess, or an educated guess, based on the initial {evidence\data\information}
⁽²⁾ - an informed guess, or an educated guess, based on the initial plus tested {evidence\data\information}

Hi Straggles,Still at it? Just to be clear fictional novels are fiction by definition, that is fact. There is nothing subjective about this. There is in fact legal considerations regarding fictional characters being made up to prevent lawsuits.Characters in fictional novels made up by authors are not real people\characters.This too is fact.Dick Tracy is a comic book character :: fact
Dick Tracy is a fictional private eye :: Dick Tracy ≡ fiction
Dick Tracy is NOT a real private eye :: Dick Tracy ≠ real
Real Private eyes exist :: factThe existence of real private eyes cannot be determined from the Dick Tracy comics, although it can be inferred that a fictional type of character may exist in reality as the source of inspiration for the fiction, that is nothing but hypothetical guessing.Certainly the non-existence of real private eyes cannot rationally be deduced or inferred from the comics.Nor can the hypothesis be rationally made that real private eyes are all fictional because Dick Tracy is a fictional.Fictional characters can never support the concept that real people are fictions.Do you understand this? Yes No Begging the question again, as per usual.The difference between KNOWN portrayals of FICTIONAL supernatural {concepts\essences\presences} and the supernatural {concepts\essences\presences} found in religious texts, is that one is KNOWN to be fictional and CANNOT be real supernatural {concepts\essences\presences} while the other is UNTESTED and thus it is NOT KNOWN whether or not they are or can be REAL supernatural {concepts\essences\presences}Do you understand this? Yes NoPretending that fictional concepts test your conjecture {that all supernatural beings are fictional} is false, and the fact that it is even considered evidence is astounding in a group of people that claim to be rational science oriented folk. There are many that are documented in religious texts and experiences that are untested. That means that you cannot logically claim that they are not possible real supernatural characters.Finding a REAL supernatural {concepts\essences\presences} would invalidate your hypothetical conjecture.Therefore you need to

1. have a test that can differentiate real presence from imagination
2. start testing areas that are untested: religious texts etc.
3. stop pretending and actually apply the scientific method.

Do you understand this? Yes No Do you realize that {the only known source of such things is imagination} and {all such things are imagination} is saying the same thing?Asserting one as true (when it has not been demonstrated) is not providing evidence for the other being true, but that you are disguising your conclusion in your premise? That you are begging the question (again?)?http://theautonomist.com/.../permanent/fallacies.php#begging

quote:

---

Begging the question fallacy - Advancing an argument on the basis of statements which are assumed but need themselves to be proved, or assuming the conclusion or part of the conclusion in the premises of an argument. (Sometimes called circular reasoning.)

---

Do you understand this? Yes No Do you accept the role of deductive reasoning in science to arrive at conclusions from the evidence?Inductive reasoning only gets you to the guess\conjecture\hypothesis.Then deductive reasoning takes over, developing falsification tests, running tests and experiments, evaluating results and forming conclusions about whether or not the evidence supports the hypothesis.Do you understand this? Yes NoEnjoy.

Hi Straggles, Is there a point to this that applies to the topic?There is objective empirical evidence that the books and characters are fantasy fictionThere is no objective empirical evidence contradicting this.

quote:

---

relative likelihood of being real	more evidence	less evidence
Confirming	more possibility	less possibility
Contradicting	less possibility	more possibility

...

1. when there is more confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there is even greater possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
2. when there is more contradicting evidence and less confirming evidence, there is even lesser possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
3. when there is less confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there are some conflicting possibilities (and some uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not), and
4. when there is more confirming evidence and more contracting evidence, there are more conflicting possibilities (and more uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not).

---

Misusing the term doesn't mean it applies.We have objective empirical evidence that the books and characters are fantasy fictionYOU have no evidence contradicting this.
YOU have not supported your negative claim with objective evidence. Including your belief that you have a theory?Seems pretty convenient to me: whatever you don't like is branded "fictional." Sounds more and more like some creationists here. Robert Byers for example.Invoking 'fiction' or 'imagination' to dismiss concepts rather than investigate them is not the enlightened, open minded path to understanding reality you seem to think it is. It is opposed to investigation and impedes further understanding. As human history and the steady march of scientific understanding shows, the dismissal of concepts as unfounded has been shown wrong time and again.Is fiction\imagination your version of a "god-did-it" explanation? Seems that way.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : .Edited by Zen Deist, : ..

Hi StragglesCuriously, I was trying to clarify your position before getting to your questions. You talked about inconsistency before you listed your questions, so you must have felt it was more important. That is why I felt it necessary to clarify what you thought was inconsistent. you must have missed this: You have a bit of a ways to go before we get to those questions, work with me and we can get there sooner, so patience.If you claim they are flawed then why not take this opportunity to point out where they are flawed and how they could be corrected.If you are complaining about the changes, then do you think they make the information better or worse? Can you suggest ways to make them better?Now, I am open-minded, so if you want to suggest improvements, then I'm willing to consider incorporating them.Lets take Message 123 step by step.That would be constructive, don't you think?EnjoyEdited by Zen Deist, : r at end of subtitle

Hi StragglesNow Message 123 Part 2a:

quote:

---

Confidence

​

...

quote:

---

RAZD's Concept Scale (revised)

1. Zero Confidence Concepts
   1. No evidence, subjective or objective, purely hypothetical arguments,
   2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
2. Low Confidence Concepts
   1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
   2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
3. Medium Confidence Concepts
   1. Based on some objective empirical evidence, but may also have contradictory or anomalous (unreconciled) evidence, a scientific hypothesis that has not (yet) been tested, that has not (yet) provided any new predicted evidence or information, or that is still in development
   2. Conclusions regarding possible reality can be made tentatively, methods to test and falsify such concepts can be developed to measure the possibility of their being true\false.
4. High Confidence Concepts
   1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
   2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

​

Note that this scale relies on the scientific method to reach levels III and IV, and both of those require objective empirical evidence. In addition, each level leads to the next higher level as more evidence and information becomes available and stricter standards of testing are applied (ie, are falsifiable).

​

Levels III and IV start with objective evidence of specific instances where the concept/s are known to be valid (positive test), where IV has been tested and validated. These compare with scientific hypothesis and scientific theory.

​

In this regard evidence for something needs to be objective empirical evidence that positively supports a scientific hypothesis, and evidence against a particular proposition would be evidence that invalidates it.

---

...

---

Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noMore to come.Enjoy

---

Note Message 141 proposes modification as follows: Edited by Zen Deist, : added

Hi StragglesNow Message 123 Part 2b:

quote:

---

... Confidence continued

​

We can also add the table from the discussion with Percy (Message 110):

​

quote:

---

To be specific, though, my argument is: where there is less evidence contradicting something being real, there is more possibility of it being real; where there is more evidence contradicting something being real, there is less possibility of it being real; where there is less confirming evidence of something being real there is less possibility of it being real; where there is more confirming evidence of something being real there is more possibility of it being real:

​

relative likelihood of being real	more evidence	less evidence
Confirming	more possibility	less possibility
Contradicting	less possibility	more possibility

​

And these can be combined:

​

1. when there is more confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there is even greater possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
2. when there is more contradicting evidence and less confirming evidence, there is even lesser possibility (and more certainty) regarding it being real,
3. when there is less confirming evidence and less contracting evidence, there are some conflicting possibilities (and some uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not), and
4. when there is more confirming evidence and more contracting evidence, there are more conflicting possibilities (and more uncertainty) regarding it being real (or not).

---

​

In fact they need to be combined to have a coherent picture of the relative likelihood of being real. Failure to consider contradictory evidence while focusing solely on confirmatory evidence means you can have a false\incomplete picture.

​

The scales of evidence from "more" to "less" can of course be extended, but the purpose is to show relative categories in four basic areas. We can have medium and high confidence in (1) and (2) and little confidence in (3) because there is insufficient evidence either way, and we can have very little confidence in (4) where massive conflict shows that there is likely a conceptual error in the hypothesis or the testing method.

​

We could inject 'more' and 'less' "subjective" evidence between extremes of 'more' and 'less' "objective" evidence, and you still end up with a relative picture of concepts.

​

All of these constructions are consistent with my posts, especially the ones presenting these constructions, and ones for the age of the earth (presenting evidence that shows that it is well over the maximum estimate of any YEC model concept), and the like . . .

​

Do you agree? yes or no

---

Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noDo you want to include subjective evidence (hearsay, anecdotal, beliefs, opinions, evidence that is open to interpretation)? It is part of our cognitive landscape, yes? PaulK appealed to it: And we can still combine confirming and contradicting evidence to get the fuller picture -- 1a + 2a + 3b + 4b would add up to high confidence -- wouldn't you think?Is that an improvement, or is it getting unwieldy? I think it is a little cumbersome and seems to give more value to a lot of subjective evidence over a little objective evidence, and this conflict would be most apparent when one is confirming and the other is contradictory -- don't you think?I prefer the original table: Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noMore to come.EnjoyEdited by Zen Deist, : .

Hi StragglesNow Message 123 Part 3:

quote:

---

Belief

​

You have also posted copies of my Modified Dawkins scale. This is the updated version of that scale that is generalized:

​

Without sufficient supporting or contradicting evidence:

1. Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty^(a)
2. Strong acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty^(a)
3. Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, but some uncertainty^(b)
4. Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncerrtain^(b)
5. Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, but some uncertainty^(b)
6. Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty^(a)
7. Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty^(a)

​

^(a) - logically invalid positions (unless supported by substantiating tested objective empirical evidence - strong conviction in the validity of evolution is based on the massive amount of objective evidence and testing).
^(b) - logically valid positions (if not contradicted by tested objective empirical evidence - continued belief in a falsified concept is delusion).

​

Now it I wanted to be pedantically consistent this scale would also have "medium acceptance" and "medium skepticism" to match the levels of confidence table, but these are relative categories.

​

Curiously, I see no inconsistencies between this scale and the previous sections.

​

Do you agree? yes or no

---

Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noI intended this to be about positions in general and not specifically about atheist\theist positions, so it may be appropriate to make it conform better with the Levels of Confidence Table. I would also move the zero point to be more appropriate: OR should we just use the concept confidence table for both accepted and skeptical beliefs, and not get tangled up in the shortcomings of the Dawkins Scale and any modifications of it?Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noStill more to come.EnjoyEdited by Zen Deist, : .

Hi StragglesNow Message 123 the wrap up

quote:

---

A weak acceptance of the possible existence of god/s is consistent with low confidence concepts, where there is unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion etc. involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid.

​

Do you agree? yes or no

​

A strong acceptance of the likelihood of the scientific theory of evolution or the age of the earth is consistent with high confidence concepts, where there is validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

​

Do you agree? yes or no

​

Concepts regarding beliefs do not necessarily assume that all evidence represents reality, the question is a little more open, a little more vague in that regard, but these concepts still lie with the red area:

​

​

A weak acceptance of the possible existence of god/s is consistent with low confidence concepts, where there is unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion etc. involved, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid ...

​

... coupled with a strong acceptance of the likelihood of the scientific theory of evolution or the age of the earth is consistent with high confidence concepts, where there is validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence ...

​

... can exist within the blue zone, where the evidence is assumed to represent reality, without any necessary contradiction from one to the other.

​

Do you agree? yes or no

​

If you agree to all of these, then we can move on to the issue of impediments to understanding, before we get to your questions.

---

Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noNow that wasn't too bad was it?EnjoyEdited by Zen Deist, : .

Hi Straggles As a source of possible supernatural essence\presence that is not tested. Quite correct. And I have asked you et al for what your test is and what your methodology is that can produce positive results and guard against false negative results. So -- in other words -- you concede that there currently is no test method or methodology that can differentiate fictional concepts from potentially real supernatural presence\essence.You have taken the rope offered and laid out ... and blithely hanged your hypothesis as untestable, as you have now shown it to be, by your own arguments.Forget the IPU, you have shown that you cannot determine that a documented fictional character is actually fictional and not supernatural.Well done, I concede your point: it is untested.It is untested because it is untestable without a definitive test and a methodology that can produce positive results and guard against false negative results. As opposed to the ability to find natural explanations through the use of human imagination and the testing of concepts, and where the scientific method discards concepts that are contradicted by evidence that shows something else. Not by the assumption that some concepts are false.Invoking imagination as the only explanation is limiting your ability to approach the issue of what is possible. That {the human imagination is the only source of some concepts} has in the past been shown to fail in the inference that the concept was pure fiction. This history of science is littered with cases that were initially dismissed out of hand, but that have been shown to be valid.All concepts originate in the mind :: that is how we perceive reality, through concepts of it.At best you can conclude that SOME concepts may be fiction. That still leaves you with the problem of identifying which ones are pure fiction and differentiating them from ones that have some potential or possible validity and then testing them.You still need to be able to differentiate fictional concepts from potentially real supernatural presence\essence.You still need a definitive test and a methodology that can produce positive results and guard against false negative results. Ah the tu quoque logical fallacy again. My cup now runneth over, my day's already complete Invoking imagination as the only explanation is limiting your ability to approach the issue of what is possible.Enjoy.

Hi Straggles, Excellent. I'll provide a more complete reply to Message 144 later (I have a full day, couple of days booked), but I see no major issue here. The minor quibble I have is the language: I don't feel the terminology of "mutually exclusive alternatives" is accurate -- it implies a dichotomy that isn't necessarily applicable or necessary to imply. I would say That could be a footnote to the table and apply to each of the levels of confidence, yes?This would also be in keeping with this table The inverse of a concept should logically have inverse likelihoods or possibilities.This would then give us: Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : r on subtitle

Hi Straggles,It seems that I missed posting Part 1 last night, lost it, and now have to recreate it.so here is the recreated Message 123 Part 1:

quote:

---

Tentativity

​

​

Science assumes that objective evidence represents reality, and thus it is within the blue area.

​

Everything outside the blue area is the reason that science must be tentative, no matter how strong the confidence we can have in a theory, because it is possible that objective evidence lies and does not represent reality.

​

All your little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities of evidence being false are ALL in the area outside the blue circle.

​

Once you or I and any scientist assumes that the evidence represents reality, we are in the same boat. We assume that the evidence does not lie.

​

Being tentative about any one (after one after one etc ad naseum) of thousands of such concepts, is conceptually no different than science being tentative about ALL of them.

​

When we come to the confidence we can have in this basic foundational assumption of science, it is the confidence that comes from the massive mountain ranges of tested data that all appear to work together to produce a cohesive, consilient and comprehensive picture\map\description that is massively cross-connected and interlocked.

​

If the evidence is a lie, then it is an extremely, extraordinarily, well constructed lie, but none the less ... this is always a possibility.

​

Do you agree? yes or no

---

Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noMore to come.Enjoy

---

Note that I will come back to this part in my more detailed response to Message 144:

Hi Straggles,I'm pretty booked up and only have a little time for responses at the moment. I was in luddite land yesterday, and my phone and aircard got dumped just after my last post. Doing a little better now, but time ... First we need to look at what you are claiming in more detail to see where you take what I see as a false step in your reasoning. I will start with the math, as it should be the clearest example to deal with:I. A Priori Assumptions A:

1. We define constant A to be a special number where A+A = A
   ​
   then we ask if A+B = B
   ​
   add A to each side:
   ​
   then A+A+B = A+B
   ​
   we know A+A = A by a priori assumption
   ​
   so (A+A)+B is the same as A+B
   ​
   so A+B = A+B
   ​
   subtract A from each side:
   ​
   then B = B :: which is tautologically true (definition of equality)
   ​
   • so ∴ A+B = B is true
   ​
2. Now add A to each side:
   ​
   then A+A+B = A+B
   ​
   and now subtract B from each side:
   ​
   then A+A = A :: does this prove that A+A = A?
   ​
   • No: it shows the operations and results are mathematically consistent with the a priori assumption
   ​
   • If we don't start with this a priori (or similar) assumption that A+A = A, we can't derive the result that A+B = B, and then we cannot work backward from A+B = B to show that A+A = A.
   ​
3. Next we ask what number A is, such that A+A = A is true
   ​
   Subtract A from each side
   ​
   then A = ?EMPTY?
   ​
   :: we define ?EMPTY? to be a concept we name 'zero'
   ​
   A+A = A :: zero + zero = zero
   ​
   zero + zero + zero = zero etc
   ​
   A+B = B :: zero + B = B
   ​
   zero + zero + B = B etc
   ​
   :: derived property P1: adding 'zero' to any number results in that number
   • where P1 this is a derived property of the a priori assumption that A+A = A and the condition that A+B = B
   ​
4. Next we ask if there is a number B such that B+B = B is true
   ​
   following the approach above for A:
   ​
   we end up with B = ?EMPTY? :: which we have defined as 'zero'
   ​
   if B+B = B is true then B = A = zero :: which is a mundanely true possibility
   ​
5. Next we ask what happens if there is a number B such that B ≠ A
   ​
   if B ≠ A
   ​
   we now add B to each side:
   ​
   so B+B ≠ A+B
   ​
   and we know from P1 above that A+B = B
   ​
   so B+B ≠ B
   ​
   now B can be any number but zero :: we can define B to be 'one' and say
   ​
   zero + one = one :: QED
   ​
   and
   ​
   one + one ≠ one :: QED

We could go on and say B+B = C and define that concept as 'two' and then develop a whole bunch of fun maths, but the point is:

1. The results derived from the a priori assumptions are:
   1. 0 + 1 = 1 and
   2. 1 + 1 ≠ 1
2. They are true as long as the a priori assumptions are assumed to be true
3. Without the a priori assumptions they are not necessarily true
4. You cannot validate the the a priori assumptions by working backwards from the derived results and principles based on the a priori assumptions.

Because these results 1a and 1b are proven, we can have Absolute Confidence in the mathematic conclusions contained within the "blue" area defined by A Priori Assumptions A - that A+A = A and A+B = B where A ≠B.II. A Priori Assumptions B:If instead we assume we are refering to a {set\class\group\bunch} of objects, then adding more examples of the {set\class\group\bunch} still results in one {set\class\group\bunch}: for example a dog will always be a dog, any new offspring will still be dogs ...

1. Here we can define A to be a {set\class\group\bunch} of apples,
   ​
   A {set} of apples + A {set} of apples = A {set} of apples.
   ​
   and A+A = A
   ​
   divide by A and (as long as A ≠0) we get
   ​
   1 + 1 = 1
   ​
2. and we can define B ≠ A to be a different {set\class\group\bunch} of objects, say oranges,
   ​
   B {set} of oranges + B {set} of oranges = B {set} of oranges.
   ​
   and B+B = B
   ​
   divide by B and (as long as B ≠0) we get
   ​
   1 + 1 = 1
   ​
3. And A ≠ B because
   ​
   A {set} of apples + B {set} of oranges ≠ A {set} of apples
   ​
   (this also confirms B {set} of oranges ≠ zero, so we don't have B+B = B becoming 0+0 = 0 this time)
   ​
   A {set} of apples + B {set} of oranges ≠ B {set} of oranges
   ​
   (and this confirms A {set} of apples ≠ zero, so we don't have A+A = A becoming 0+0 = 0 this time either)
   ​
   * what we have here is
   ​
   A{set} of apples + notA{set} of oranges = not{A{set} or notA{set}} *
   ​
4. because A ≠ B -and- A ≠ 0 -and- B ≠ 0 we don't have a special condition,
   ​
   and we can generalize the results to say
   ​
   1 + 1 ≡ 1
   ​
   * 1 + not(1) = neither 1 nor not(1) *
   ​
   based on these a priori assumptions

1. The results derived from the a priori assumptions are:
   1. 1 + 1 ≡ 1
   2. * 1 + not(1) = neither 1 nor not(1) *
2. They are true as long as the a priori assumptions are assumed to be true
3. Without the a priori assumptions they are not necessarily true
4. You cannot validate the the a priori assumptions by working backwards from the derived results and principles based on the a priori assumptions.

Because these result 1a is proven, we can have Absolute Confidence in the mathematic conclusions contained within the "blue" area defined by A Priori Assumptions B - that A+A = A and B+B = B and A ≠B.III. Extending the conclusions outside their "blue" areas:We have absolute confidence in the results of A Priori Assumptiona A within the "blue" area defined by the A Priori Assumptions A:

• 0 + 1 = 1 and
• 1 + 1 ≠ 1

AND we have absolute confidence in the results of A Priori Assumptions B within the "blue" area defined by the A Priori Assumptions B:

• 1 + 1 ≡ 1
• * 1 + not(1) = neither 1 nor not(1) *

If these results apply outside their respective "blue" areas, then we have: and because both cannot be true outside their respective blue areas at the same time, we have an irreconcilable, unavoidable contradiction. &there4 The results are dependent on the definitions or a priori assumptions, and the definitions or a priori assumptions are NOT proven by the internal consistency and proven results of the maths that are based on the a priori assumptions. That would be circular reasoning. Absolute confidence inside a blue area does not translate into any confidence outside the blue area.Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noNow we move on to: First, I want to compare these statements to ones I make in Message 161 (which are also in Message 123):

quote:

---

When we come to the confidence we can have in this basic foundational assumption of science, it is the confidence that comes from the massive mountain ranges of tested data that all appear to work together to produce a cohesive, consilient and comprehensive picture\map\description that is massively cross-connected and interlocked.

​

If the evidence is a lie, then it is an extremely, extraordinarily, well constructed lie, but none the less ... this is always a possibility.

---

I think you will agree that they are substantially similar: yes or noThe significant difference that I see is that you assume you can backflush confidence in the initial assumption from the evidence derived from it, whereas I do not.The proofs given above carry over into logic used in science: the reason I do not, and why you can not, backflush confidence in the initial assumption/s, from the high confidence derived from testing based on the assumption, is that this high confidence dissappears if you do not make the initial assumption. If you assume that evidence is, or may be, a lie, then you cannot derive any scientific confidence it the validity of any measurement, test or observation. In fact you cannot make any conclusions, because any piece of information or evidence could be false.

quote:

---

​

Science assumes that objective evidence represents reality, and thus it is within the blue area.

​

Everything outside the blue area is the reason that science must be tentative, no matter how strong the confidence we can have in a theory, because it is possible that objective evidence lies and does not represent reality.

---

Internal consistency, no matter how cohesive, consilient, comprehensive and massively cross-connected and interlocked the developed picture\map\description is, it cannot say anything about what lies outside the blue area.What we CAN legitimately say is that BUT: we cannot say anything about whether or not the evidence actually is a lie with any confidence -- it is assumed that it is not a lie, there is no evidence for this assumption being true or false, and thus it necessarily sits at the zero confidence level.Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noEnjoy

---

* items added by edit marked thus *
Notes:
⁽¹⁾ - know with scientific tentativityEdited by Zen Deist, : minor adds, don't affect current non-replyEdited by Zen Deist, : *Edited by Zen Deist, : vs changed to *AND* for syntax (yes there is a sin tax) plus some minor edits -- does not affect the non-response type replies.Edited by Zen Deist, : language correction

Hi PaulK, Curiously, if this is your response to a detailed reply to a specific point that Straggler asked, showing that his conclusion of back-flushing confidence in the results based on an assumption, to result in confidence in the assumption, is not correct and cannot be correct ...... then why should I reply to your other posts that display other comprehension problems: So you say (first) that the logical analysis doesn't show that the argument is invalid, and (second) that it shows that the argument is invalid (rather than wrong or falsified). You agree that you can't make valid conclusions with invalidly formed arguments - you can guess, and the guess may be correct, but it is not a conclusion.So why should I bother replying to you when you say things like this? I'll address this in replies to other posts\people.Enjoy.

Hi Catholic Scientist, well said. Correct. When you make the assumption that the evidence truthfully represents reality, then you safely, unconditionally, justifiably, ignore any and all concepts related to the evidence being a lie.Enjoy.