In the midst of the era of “ubiquitous data,” we are surrounded by more unknowns than ever before. Premature conclusions, guesswork, purposeful obfuscations, and downright lies are being manufactured and distributed by all sides, each and every day.
This has led to a rise in the manufacture and use of terms such as “settled science,” “speaking my truth,” and “hate speech,” as if any of those are actual things. It has also led to an increase in the use of two actual terms, theoretical (theory) and hypothetical (hypothesis,) two words with virtually opposite meanings and yet, they are used synonymously.
Well, regardless of how you use them, here at The Rational Apprentice, I use them in a very specific way and I think it important for you to know what I mean when I say or write them.
A hypothesis is a guess based on observation. I see something that I do not fully understand and I make a guess as to how it works. I then test my hypothesis to see if it fits reality.
If, after rigorous, repeated, and verified testing, I find that my hypothesis passes with a 100% record of zero failure, my hypothesis is then, and only then, elevated to theory.
If however, my hypothesis fails—even 1 time—my hypothesis must be altered using additional observational data, to form a new hypothesis with which to begin the testing process again.
In a nutshell, a hypothesis is a guess about reality, a theory has been proven, through rigorous testing, to be reality.
Newton’s work is referred to as “Gravitational Theory” and Einstein’s work, “The Theory of Relativity” because they both have a 100% record of zero failure. THESE are theories.
What most people mean to say when they use the word theory is hypothesis.
Which means that terms like, “conspiracy theory,” should actually be, “conspiracy hypotheses.” Then again, when all of the theoretical conspiracies talked about over the past 50 years come true, I guess they really are theories!
In this week’s episode of The Rational Apprentice Podcast we’re tackling the second element required to determine rightness in physics, validity.
I know that logic and logical syllogisms are huge subjects and are difficult for most people—I struggle with them all the time. But the good news is that, for our purposes, we really only need to cover the most basic forms.
So, we’ll go through a few simple deductions so that you can get the idea of what validity really means. And to help a little more, below are the Venn diagrams for the four examples we use in podcast episode 13.
If you have not yet reached episode 13 of the podcast, don’t let my mention of it infer that you are behind. The Rational Apprentice Podcast is structured more like a course and should be listened to in order at your own pace. By discussing the topics contained in No.13, I am not implying that you should immediately jump to it, skipping episodes in the process. This newsletter will still be there for you when you get to the episode.
No. 1: Dogs (True, True, Valid | Right)
All dogs are animals;
A German Shepard is a dog;
Therefore a German Shepard is an animal.
No. 2: Words (False, True, Valid | Not Right)
All things containing words are books;
This take-out menu contains words;
Therefore this take-out menu is a book.
No. 3: Rubber Tires (True, True, Not Valid | Not Right)
All roadworthy cars have rubber tires;
This wheelbarrow has a rubber tire;
Therefore this wheelbarrow is a roadworthy car.
No. 4: Galileo (False, False, Valid | Not Right)
All Spaniards were and are scientists;
Galileo was a Spaniard;
Therefore Galileo was a scientist.
And here’s my favorite…
If you are interested in the subject of Logic, Syllogisms, and Venn diagrams, Academic Agent has a fantastic course on the subject: https://tinyurl.com/3cuhmr8s.
AA is not a sponsor. I recommend his courses because I have taken many of them and find them extremely valuable.
THE BLACKMAILER
by Robbie Cutler edited by The Rational Apprentice
SUSPECTS:
Horace Sage, MD - A friend of Judge Thornton's, who did Linda Amberton a big favor.
Martin Amberton - Husband of Linda Amberton
Susan Roystor - A longtime friend of Linda Amberton
Mary Devers - Worked in the Centerville Courthouse as a file clerk
THE STORY:
Linda Amberton, a proud member of the Centerville City Council with an excellent reputation, found an envelope in her mailbox. The letter, though addressed to her, had no postal stamp, and thus, she had no idea from where the letter was sent; someone had just placed it in her mailbox.
Mrs. Amberton, after reading the letter, immediately went to see her friend, Inspector Bob Clover, at the Riverton police station.
The letter was short and to the point. It said, “Linda Amberton, I want ten thousand dollars in small bills, or I will publish what you did five years ago. We’ll see if the people of Riverton want a thief on their City Council. X.”
Linda told Inspector Clover the reason she was being blackmailed; twenty years ago, before she married Martin Amberton, she was broke with dependent mother. That was before her mother's remarriage.
So, to get the funds to pay the bills, Linda began stealing clothing from stores in Riverton, her hometown, located fifty miles down the Interstate. She was eventually caught but received a suspended sentence from a judge who believed that Linda was caught in a difficult situation and deserved a second chance.
The judge assured her that the files were sealed and arranged for a job for Linda which enabled her to pay everything back.
But that was hardly the typical background for a City Council member. It was just the kind of information that would entice a blackmailer to demand a $10,000 , “secret keeping” fee.
After recounting her story to Inspector Clover, Clover sent Linda home and arranged for two policemen to discretely stake out the Amberton house in hopes of catching anyone delivering further letters.
Inspector Clover also met with Linda's husband, Martin Amberton, who had known about Linda’s past for years. “Who else knew about this, Mr. Amberton?” asked the inspector.
Martin gave Inspector Clover three names and a little background on each person. First was Dr. Horace Sage, who gave her the much-needed job. Dr. Sage was getting on in years and would be retiring soon.
Next was Mary Devers, who currently holds the position of file clerk at the courthouse.
And last was Susan Royster, an old college friend of Linda Amberton's who helped Linda resettle in Centerville with a fresh start. Ms. Royster even drove her here from her old place in Riverton. See, Linda didn't drive then and still doesn't now.”
“Anything else that you want to tell me? What do you know about the files themselves,” asked Inspector Clover.
“Well,” Martin responded, “As it happens, old Judge Thornton is still fairly active and Linda and I asked him to unseal the records for us. They still bore the same seal—literally—as they did when they were originally sealed twenty years ago. And Riverton changed its official seal a while back, destroying the original."
“How is the ransom money supposed to be delivered?” asked Inspector Clover.
“Oddly enough, that wasn't said,” started Martin, “So I guess the next communication will be about the drop.”
Inspector Clover then asked Martin if they could raise $10,000.
“Sure,” Martin replied. “Her mother and stepfather left her pretty well fixed. He owned the iron mine that used to employ half the town. A good thing, too because ever since I was laid off, we have been living on her money.”
“So it looks like we're in a waiting mode now,” stated Inspector Clover.
The inspector interviewed the people on Martin’s list of those who knew about Linda's background.
The first interview was with Dr. Sage, a wrinkled general practitioner. He told Inspector Clover he knew Linda well—Linda Moulton as she then was.
“She remembers you very well, too, Dr. Sage,” Inspector Clover said, “Says that she owes you a lot for giving her a job when she really needed it.”
“Well, she was a good person and a hard worker. The job interview was pre-arranged; I had a call from my old friend and fraternity brother, Judge Thornton. He said she'd been in some trouble; he wasn't specific, but he let me know that it was nothing that a good job and three-square meals a day wouldn't fix. So I hired her.”
Later in the interview, Dr. Sage mentioned that he had been one of Madoff's victims and admitted that his retirement money had gone up in smoke and that money was now tight.
The inspector thanked Dr. Sage for his time and moved on to his second interview, this time with Mary Devers, who knew all about the case. When she took over the position of File Clerk at the courthouse, it turns out that her predecessor had been very gossipy.
“That Moulton woman got off lucky—must have charmed old Judge Thornton if you ask me!” she said.
The last interview was with Susan Royster. She had a quiet dignity when she spoke of Linda from the old days. “So, she shoplifted during a terrible time in her life. So what? I was pleased to help her. Still am,” Susan added with a vigorous nod.
She, too, admitted she needed money as she had lost her job at the hospital when they had those cutbacks back in February.
A few days later, the inspector received a call from Martin Amberton. A second blackmail letter had shown up in the Amberton mailbox overnight, when the surveillance detective had literally gone to sleep on the job.
The letter instructed Linda Amberton to drive to a secluded location on the southern side of town and leave the money in a flour sack, behind a small grove of white birch trees, off the road, at the fifteen-mile marker.
“Linda is quite upset by all this, Inspector. I just haven’t had the heart to tell her about this second letter yet,” Martin told the inspector. “She put this all behind her a long time ago. I'll drive her if necessary, but this isn't right. Does she really have to do this?” he asked.
Inspector Clover stood up at his desk and said, “That won't be necessary, Mr. Amberton. I am sure I know who the blackmailer is.”
Do you?
When you’ve finished solving the mysteries, click the button below to hear my analysis.
THE BREAK-IN
by Walton Burns
SITUATION:
Sam Kanter’s home was robbed and everything of value was stolen. There are two suspects: Michael Kanter, Sam’s son, who is staying at his father’s home, and George Fontaine, a known thief who was recently seen in the area.
Who did it?
THE CLUES:
Remember: all clues should be taken as true.
Sam Kanter, a successful businessman, was away on a business trip when the robbery occurred.
Sam’s son, Michael, is the only other person living in Sam’s home.
Michael has large gambling debts and, although allowed to live in the home at no cost, his father gives him no money.
The Police found one of the back door window panes broken.
Although the home has a security system, no alarms went off that day.
George Fontaine arrived in Greenwich on the same day that Sam left. He also had a ticket to leave town on the day after the robbery.
George refused to tell the police why he came to Greenwich.
Because of his careful planning and skill in disabling security systems, George had never been caught in the act of robbery.
When the police questioned him, Michael said, “Look at all this broken glass out here on the lawn! I live here. Why would I break the door open when I could just open it with a key?”
When you’ve finished solving the mysteries, click the button below to hear my analysis.
Where to Find Me:
Website: https://www.therationalapprentice.com/
Substack: https://tinyurl.com/2f392upw
BitChute: https://tinyurl.com/2p84knp2
Rumble: https://tinyurl.com/48ys6mc7
Odysee: https://tinyurl.com/4p8peak8
Minds: https://tinyurl.com/4w48sfrk