Gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmitriyev

[ramset]

When Sister Mary alice gets back, your both gonna get the ruler across the knuckle treatment!,and maybe the old Adhomiwhip across the buttocks!
She's gonna have some sledgeucatin for the two of you!

[WilbyInebriated]

I said inductive logic is discouraged in soft sciences while it may be acceptable in hard sciences, didn't I? That's just an example. A telling one. Is that a small difference in using logic?

So, now, who's the liar?

no, no, no. you are changing the premise now... is ad hoc your new favorite fallacy?
I SAID "show how and where a different type (a type that does not use inductive or deductive reasoning) of logic is used in a court case..." i said this because you claimed that the logic used in a court of law was different from the logic used in science... tu stultus es... q.e.d.

see that emphasized part? what part of that don't you comprehend?

[Omnibus]

Accepting multiple truths about a phenomenon is just fine for soft sciences while mandating a single truth anout a phenomenon in hards science. Didn't I give that as a difference in logic and reasoning? Is that a small difference?

And, finally, again, who's the liar?

[Omnibus]

In view of the above if you have even a trace of self-respect you will not allow yourself to continue to embarrass yourself and will stop posting on this subject.

[WilbyInebriated]

Accepting multiple truths about a phenomenon is just fine for soft sciences while mandating a single truth anout a phenomenon in hards science. Didn't I give that as a difference in logic and reasoning? Is that a small difference?

And, finally, again, who's the liar?

we were talking about a different type of logic being used in science versus courts of law. what you just stated is not a "difference" in the context you opened with... you brought up this erroneous idea of "different logic" as a strawman argument back then remember? you were avoiding my other questions... can you demonstrate how a court case can use some other type of logic than deductive or inductive reasoning? NO YOU CAN'T! which is why you have been dragging this out for 5+pages now. it is just a pathetic attempt at obfuscation via various and repeated logical fallacies until no one but me recalls what was the original point of contention.

you are the liar... still.