 So we talked about available evidence compared to absent evidence, and with an inductive argument, you know, you have to use available evidence so you don't get to rely on an absent evidence. Okay, so that's one way the strength is determined with evidence. Another way is the balance of evidence, right? The balance of evidence or whether you're using, right, all the available evidence. And you know, as far as evidence is concerned, well there's either supporting evidence or there's defeating evidence. And supporting evidence is, well, probably simply stated, right? It's the evidence that supports the conclusion or our Linn's probability, right, and reinforces the conclusion. Okay, defeating evidence is evidence that it gives us a conclusion contrary to the one we're looking for, or for the conclusion of the argument. Now, as I've said, inductive arguments are ones where the truth of the premises or the evidence makes the conclusion more likely to be true but not necessarily. And part of the reason for this is you're going to have defeating evidence. It's going to come up. Now just because you have defeating evidence doesn't, you know, overwhelm the conclusion, at least not always, but at least sometimes it's going to make the conclusion less likely to be true. So I'll use an example. So returning to our talk about aliens, right? Well, you know, part of the available evidence is all the planets, the conditions for life, the stars, and the conditions are out there. There's lots and lots of planets, lots and lots of stars, and you know, certain frequency, not frequency, a certain ratio of them, not frequency, that's right, certain frequency of them, could support life, right? And this is what the Drake equation is supposed to tell us. Well, one of the things that's considered in the Drake equation and whether there is life in other planets is the age of the universe. And the universe has been around a really, really long time. So according to, you know, some of the people that think about this, like, look, look, since the universe has been around a long time, we can't be the first. We can't be the first form of life in the universe. The universe is over, I think it's 13 trillion years old. I'm sure somebody's going to correct me in the comments. I think it's something like 13 trillion years old. Well, God, Leyshire looks like, you know, with a number of planets that are out there and conditions that are out there. Our star is young, but it's not, you know, our star is young, right? I forget how long ago our star started. It wasn't the beginning of the universe, right? And there's lots of other stars out there. So one thought is, well, yeah, there's a long time has passed and the conditions are ripe for life, at least in some parts of the universe. So by now, there should have been a not only life, but intelligent life and not only intelligent life, but life that would have reached the confines of its solar system and make contact with other solar systems and other forms of life. Think Star Trek and the Federation of Planets. You know, aliens. You also have the Vulcans, the Klingons, all these Romulans, all the others, all these other forms of life. They started their own civilizations. Okay. So the conditions are ripe for the universe, but this is what's called the Fermi paradox. Well, the conditions are ripe. There should be an ancient advanced civilization out there, but we never heard from them. We've never heard anything. We can't detect them. We haven't seen them. Whether there is life out there, golly, it doesn't look like it because we've had no contact. Well, that the fact that we haven't had contact. We haven't seen this life out there. That's defeating evidence. There's lots of supporting evidence. Remember planets, green zone, compounds, stars, all this other stuff, right? Organic compounds, all this stuff is out there. Sure, there's lots of supporting evidence, but there's also defeating evidence. We haven't had any contact with other civilizations. We haven't been able to see them. I mean, nothing for radio or light or warp drive. I mean, this is the science fiction part of Star Trek. That's the fiction part. We haven't had any sort of contact like that. Okay. Why not? We should have, right? Why haven't we? So when we're talking about, you know, all the available evidence, right, whether you have complete evidence, the balance of evidence, right? That means you have to consider both the supporting evidence and the defeating evidence. You can't just pick your favorite. You can't just pick one over the other to support your conclusion. You have to consider all of it. And sometimes that's painful because it leads to a conclusion that you don't want to accept. But that's where the evidence goes, right? So if you're, you know, when you're considering the conclusion, you have to consider the balance of the evidence, the supporting versus the defeating. If you don't, right, it's called the fallacy of incomplete evidence and arguably, all fallacies and inductive logic boil down to the fallacy of incomplete evidence of some form or another of them. So the strength of the conclusion and an inductive argument is determined, right, by using the available evidence and that it's complete. And the supporting evidence, you know, if the evidence supports the conclusion, right, if it's strong, right, the supporting evidence outweighs any defeating evidence. If the defeating evidence outweighs the supporting, well, then you have to reject that conclusion, right? It's, it's too weak. It's too too weak. Alright, so next, we've got, you know, available evidence versus absent supporting versus defeating complete evidence, right, the balance of evidence. Okay, the next thing to consider are the kinds of evidence. And not all evidence, not all probabilities are the same thing.