And you are not????![]()
I understand... But please don't get it twisted. I'm observing things in the book which do not appear to jive outside of the book.
I guess, in some colloquial way, one could state logic is circular... Meaning, the premises must logically follow to their conclusion, which could effectively present a circle; since it begins back where it starts.
However, there is a huge difference in stating something like:
'Gravity is true because chapter three says so.' (VS) 'Chapter three states gravity is true, so I tested it myself, and would you look at that, gravity is true after testing, which then confirms the book's chapter.'
Please do not read too much into this random example. I'm just demonstrating how there is a difference :-)