p. 6 The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer;
OK.
it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable,
Wait, what?
Mathematics and science are forms of logic, advised by opinions of the answer(s). And undeniability is only achieved by logic. Without logic, anything is deniable.
I assume it depends on definition. He was trying to differentiate between logical systems that can be valid but not sound, and mathematics that effect solid conclusions independent of theoretical constructs.
and it is not necessary to deal with what has been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific
By definition, yes, it is. The term "exact sciences" is a description, not an accolade granted by the whim of some authority. If one is being exact and scientific, then one is dealing with the 'exact aciences', whether one likes it or not.
Again, he was only differentiating between the fields that comprise the exact sciences and his findings which, although they don’t fall into those fields, are exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false,
So, only through the use of logic, then. Chess is a logical system.
I think you are splitting hairs since chess can be considered both logical and based on math. But you don’t seem to separate the two as being distinct. So much confusion comes from starting off with different definitions that it then becomes difficult to communicate effectively.
which will only delay the very life you want for yourself.
Argument from consequences is a fallacy.
That’s not what he did.
The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to stick to the rules.
Then stick to them. One of the rules is that two statements that contradict each other cannot both be true:
"
The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic"
"
it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable"
Pick one. You cannot have both; Unless you "
make up your own rules as to what is true and false".
He was trying to make sure the words being used in the context he was using them would not be misunderstood, so please, for the sake of moving beyond page 6 (Geeze!) don’t purposely misconstrue what he clearly tried to clarify.
But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs.
That's true. So, why did you start this entire line of argument by doing exactly that? It appears to be a demand that your audience suspend the rules of logic, in favour of pursuing a desire - a combined argument from consequences and well-poisoning, whereby you impose rules arbitrarily based on their ephemeral desirability in support of each point you wish to believe.
This has nothing to do with poisoning the well and this is not an argument from consequences just because the desired consequences result from his observations. You are assuming that this discovery is false, so who is poisoning the well?
However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?
When it is, no, we aren't. But that's not an argument; It's an advertisement for a future argument, not yet made.
This was not an argument. It was an introduction. He said that we have not delved deeply into an understanding of our ultimate nature (which is true) and by doing so, we can achieve what we all want (world peace) but… he goes onto say that it will require giving up a belief (namely free will) that the majority of mankind believes we have.
"When it is scientifically proven that the Moon is made of cheese, are we given a choice as to whether to accept that fact?"
No, because it is not a fact and it has not been scientifically proven. Are you telling me that you believe this knowledge is comparable to the belief that the moon is made of cheese?
How presumptive can you be considering that you have no idea what his first discovery entails.
Well, no, we aren't; in the hypothetical scenario where this has been scientifically proven. But where is that proof? Without it, the acceptance of the claim as fact is absurd.
What do you think I’ve been trying to do bilby? I’m not asking anyone to accept a claim without proof that the claim is sound.
This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition,
More advertising. But where are the purported goods? If the argument is compelling, you don't need to tell us in advance. That's what "compelling" means - that it will persuade us on its own merits.
There was nothing wrong with his introduction. You can tear it apart as everyone seems to desire doing, but the goods are delivered. As I said early on, the first three chapters must be read in a step-by-step fashion so that gaps are not inadvertently created. This requires careful examination, not perusing or glossing over the fundamental concepts, or worse, demanding a quick synopsis that would never give this work justice.
So why the P T Barnum preamble to hype up the rubes for some magnificent revelation?
Ironically, your response is the very reason he felt the need to preface the book the way he did.
and your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity.
Sure. If it would, you would just do it. That you need to talk about it just sets of the skepticism alarm in any intelligent mind.
Skepticism would be there regardless of either “just do it” (as you put it), or “create an introduction” due to the nature of the claims.
This isn't a "mathematical, scientific, and undeniable" argument; Rather, it's a spectacular theatrical trailer for an upcoming argument that, for some reason, we need to be told in advance will be "mathematical, scientific, and undeniable".
He felt the need to tell people in advance that this discovery is what he says it is because most claims are none of these, which is why he belabored this point.
The only reason to tell people in advance about these attributes of your argument is that it lacks them,
Maybe in some instances but not in this one, so your theory doesn’t hold.
but you hope they won't realise that fact if you have bamboozled them into expecting something "mathematical, scientific, and undeniable".
I am not bamboozling anyone to expect anything other than what it claims to be. So please stop jumping to premature conclusions before you even open the front cover.
