Metaphysics 12. Facts & Logic Redo

This is a redo of part 11 of this series on metaphysics. In it I attempt to better clarify the four main points in the first video. In review they are:
1. It is much harder to prove a proposition than most people realize. A philosophical skeptic is a person who, for philosophical reasons, believes absolute certainty to be strictly impossible.
2. Even logic can't fully resolve a feud between interlocutors over whether a proposition is true or not. No matter how carefully we apply logic, our logical conclusions (both deductive and inductive) are only as true as our premises. And logic cannot help us determine if they are true. For that we rely on testimony and observation, which are imperfect. If one is being consistent (has no contradictions) one is being logical, but that doesn't establish that one's opinions are true, only that one's opinions are logical. One can have a completely false system of beliefs that has no contradictions.
3. Philosophical skepticism is meant to keep us undogmatic in our beliefs, i.e. to help us maintain an open mind as we seek the truth. However, if one adopts the hardened view that knowledge is impossible, one ironically winds up contradicting himself, by making a knowledge claim while at the same time claiming we can have no such knowledge. This contradiction implies a logical error somewhere. I present an alternative form of skepticism that I call "positive skepticism." In short, positive skepticism is the prescriptive attitude that, in the face of our uncertainty about things, all things remain possible. This is in contrast to the descriptive form of skepticism that declares certainty that knowledge is impossible. I call that "negative skepticism." I assert that positive skepticism (the prescriptive attitude that, until we know otherwise, all things remain possible) allows us to maintain a very open mind, and yet does not lead us to make a contradiction, or to sink into an unjustified cynicism about knowledge all together.
4. Finally, I go over a form of logic that I introduce in my 2022 book "The Evolution of Perception Re-Explained." I believe this unique application of deductive logic leads to real epistemological certainty about at least one class of beliefs, if used properly.