This is the SECOND MESSAGE:

Let me address a few of the reasons why INFORMAL LOGIC is what we humans
are constrained to rely upon in the process of what literally is (by the
second part of the American Heritage (c) definition) of *FORENSICS*. But
first let me sew together this message with the first one by saying that
definition (1) and definition (2) (see first message) are not unrelated to
one another. If this is not clear from what is written so far in this
thread, it shall become much clearer, as the thread progresses.

First of all, pure logic (synonymous with pure mathematics) is -- for
purposes of evolutionary biology forensics (EBF) -- one of the more valuable
tools, but totally useless by itself alone. Will not even attempt to
exhaust the reasons why, but here are just a few:

1. To arrive at any kind of meaningful investigatory data about any
natural thing or process or dimension (or any other way "reality is
expressed" ) we must first observe some natural things and happenings and
get some ideas about it. While those ideas may seem to be quite obvious to
us, we know that any brained animal infant, if deprived of most sensory
stimulation, will not become "hard wired" as it were to make much sense of
any stimuli thereafter. The evidence compelling that has been obtained from
experimentation with non-human species, except for instances where such
deprivation in a human infant is caused by circumstances outside a
researcher's control.
An abundance of evidence, both circumstantial and direct, converges upon
this forensic "conclusion."

2. Hence, our human reason can literally be said to be ABSOLUTELY
DEPENDENT upon having some kind
of interaction with at least some portion of reality providing some
consistencies of sensory experience. Most things successfuly pushed out of
the confines of a baby bed go downward if they are not sufficiently
supported by something below; although until the infant senses (sees) the
something below, they might go downward but not
all the way to the bottom of things (floor). But then again... once in a
while something seems to tend to go up (a fly; a helium-filled balloon or a
balloon slapped upwardly with a hand. A kitten with eyelids taped shut for
the first several weeks of its life my experience light, but is likely to
run into things like table legs, and never be able to
figure out to go to the right or to the left to avoid it. Hopefully these
are enough alusions to examples, although they fall far short of explaining
all that is "known to" or "quite abundantly assumed by and agreed among"
physiologists, psychologists, pediatricians, parents...

3. Notice that many, if not MOST, sensory experiences are NOT of a
binomial or polemical nature. Much experience is unpredictable and
statistical. MOST things dropped go down. SOME go up. Being able to make
some crude sense of this does not require completion of a course in
probability. It can be approximated by something akin to what rifle hunters
of wild game, and target shooters, call "Kentucky windage." We must not
think of it as too extremely crude, however, because the ability to estimate
by some expert shooters, to allow for
the effect of wind on a bullet enroute to a target, are amazingly accurate.
And some professional basketball players make a high percentage of
strip-hoop shots from the three-point areas of a basketball court. It is a
challenge for us even to design and construct a machine that accurate. But
a "sense" of statistical phenomena is "learned" from reality. It is a
conformity (improved by intent and by practice) of the brain with reality.
(And I avoid using the word "adaptation" in this context, because that word
has become LOADED with intellectual baggage that would
distract from the message here, rather than help to clarify it.

4. Even a human who has become very "indoctrinated" as an infant, by what
we could call "reality's general rules and their scopes and their
statistical natures, " can become severely stressed and disoriented by
sensory deprivation, (vis a vis experiments in the prior century, in which
humans were put into situations approximating total darkness, zero gravity,
temperature invariant from subject's body's own internal control, zero
sound, zero odors). All experimental parameters were virtual, of course, as
it is quite impossible to deprive 100 %% of every last vestige of external
stimuli. These simulations, if prolonged, resulted in a subjects hearing
his/her own blood pumping, in loss of physical bearings, in auditory and
visual and tactile hallucinations, and in some instances in a temporary form
of "insanity" in which the research subject becomes uncertain whether the
real world even remained out there waiting for the experiment to be over...
and uncontrollable panic set in. I seem to recall reading that some
research subjects never fully got over the traumatic experience, and
required treatment for something akin to what nowadays is termed post
traumatic stress disorder. So, it is clear to see that we humans are
addicted to our sensory stimuli which we require to keep us psychologically,
philosophically and physiologically oriented. (Astronauts must train
intensively to prepare for, and require a lots of reminders of, their
connections with, and participation in, a familiar "reality." And, for
reasons not clearly understood, by me at least, victims of brain
debilitating diseases -- although they be unable to store any conscious
memory of any structure in their lives, fair far better in institutional
inviornments which provide consistency as, for example, in what times they
eat, what time certain things are done for them, where they sit at a dinner
table, familiar (???) faces ...etc.)

5. (We've barely scratched the surface here... but these points are
sufficient, hopefully, to demonstrate that there seems to be compelling
evidence that we humans reason in large part as conditioned by the "reality"
we are "plugged into," and do not get along well if unplugged from it.)

Again... there is so much argumentation (informal) required to bring the
primary points to be established here... that messages must not become to
elongated. (Also, this is first draft attempt, so please bear with...)

In first message, plus this one, we have seen (I hope) some things which are
only prepatory background for points
most desired to be gotten at... However, hopefully I have brought us to the
point at which a generality can be made
based upon all so far... namely: Formal logic, requires defined terms,
postulates, operations... and is a useful tool. Let us STIPULATE that pure
mathematics, also known as pure logic, also known in particular models as
logic systems, also known as simply "mathematics" processes only WHAT WE
PUT INTO IT. It can be, and is pursued by some humans, FOR ITS OWN
ENJOYMENT, without having to be applied to anything. However, it also is a
useful tool for dealing with SOME aspects of "reality." We humans are
hampered in sensing or processing with our brains ALL of reality or, for
that matter, of measuring and grasping with absolute certainty or accuracy
the whole of reality. Our experience with reality is "learned" through
imperfect sensory abilities and is processed with something akin to
"statistical Kentucky windage;" and just ONE of the things we humans are
CONFINED by is our own ability to experience everything, all the time, and
process all the information even if we
COULD.

Hopefully these ASSUMPTIONS are sufficiently explained so far to enable us
to adopt them, if only for purposes, of seeing where these messages are
heading, in making some points this layman would like to pose for your
CONSIDERATION toward the end of this thread.

(To be continued)

g