One problem with the experimental empiricism aspect of science are the conclusions are not definitive points, but fuzzy points within a margin of error. If we use fuzzy conclusions as premises for logic, there is more than one angle that a line can have and still touch two fuzzy points. If the two points were shape points, there is only one possible line. But two fuzzy points allows many lines dependent on the degree of fuzzy. What this does is allow a special effect in logic. if we use enough fuzzy points and pick certain angles between these fuzzy points, we can lead the line to conclusions we want to be true. It is true, but in the margin of error that is compounding. The trick is to pitch the premises as solid points, so the fuzzy dice premises are not seen. it has to be global warming; the fuzzy dice are made to look like sharp points for logic. Let me give an example of this special effect. If we look at the orientations of democrat and replublican, both sides contain truth, but neither side contains the entire truth. That means the premises of each are fuzzy dice, since the denial of truth in the other POV, creates an uncertainty within the conclusions. These fuzzy dice allows both sides to reason, with what they assume and preach are sharp premise points. But in reality they are fuzzy dice. Each side can see this in the other, but can't see that they are doing it. To get sharp points one would need to reconcile both POV at the same time, which specialists are not able to do. The perfect democrat would be the last one who could reconcile with the republican POV. Someone on the fence has a better shot, since he is not as beholden. But on the fense and on the outside will not have as much say. The trick is perpetuated.