The use of logic in establishing truths

I agree with PurpleYouko that this is an important definition for this thread. I also agree with the definition provided: Another important point must be made, though.The only way we can know The Truth, is by having multiple people test "the actual state of reality" and agree upon what it is. That is, we must be able to show reality to others in order to verify that it is The Truth. The important part here is "able to show", not "others".

Yeah, I started to think about that right after I posted and didn't want to edit the post.My point may be more clearly made by something like this:(00-05%) Least Confident - One personal observation
(00-10%) Hardly Better - One observation from multiple people
(10-60%) Better - Multiple personal observations
(10-80%) Better Still - Multiple observations from multiple people
(80-90%) Very Confident - Hundreds of thousands of observation from thousands of different people under many different circumstances
(90-95%) Most Confident - Ongoing observations from increasing numbers of people
(95%-??) The Truth - ?The numbers in brackets are just for fun

I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. This "confidence" you speak of did not rely on "ongoing observations from increasing numbers of people" therefore it wasn't "most confident" in the way my table describes. This confidence you speak of is more like a stubborn "gut feeling". Gut feelings are so low on the confidence scale I'm talking about that they didn't even get a spot. I agree. And so does my table/description of confidence. The table deals with masses making observations that agree. If it's just masses "agreeing", that's not confidence (in the sense of my table) at all. That table is defining what "confidence" means. You can't use another definition (even if it is the most general/popular one) and then talk about something else. It just doesn't make sense.