Yes like I said we all have our individualised skill sets. Yours is being like a robot. It is also very possible that your preconceived notion of you being able to approach things with an open mind and are unbiased is actually working to your deferment. If Biden is fake it mean you have been wrong with your thought processes and your stubbornness refuses to let you believe you were wrong. It's a trait and a flaw at the same time. Most times it works for your benefit, but not always.
The way I function actually doesn't place me into a corner like that. If there is evidence of him being fake, and it comes out he is, I will accept that, since the new data points show that reality. but until i see such data, I must accept the most likely and most simple probability. which is biden is not fake.
Take this example about how your approach is missing key elements to search for the truth. An intelligent person says this particular other person is going to win the jackpot lotto tomorrow. When tomorrow comes that other person wins the lotto. The next day the intelligent person makes another prediction for this new lotto drawings winner. When the numbers come. That next person wins the lotto as was predicted by the intelligent person. The intelligent person says he's a psychic. You say he's not and he has no evidence to prove it. Guess who wins: you. Nice job!
Predicting the lotto multiple times in a row has happened to people, so its entirely possible that he could predict a couple people winning and be correct without being psychic. each time he is correct, or incorrect, this would be a datapoint as to the precise accuracy of his predictions. after several predictions you could say that there is some probability that he has some method to know the outcome of the lotto to some set accuracy. him being psychic or not would not be a factor that would need to be considered or accepted.
Now a worker overhears her other coworker saying she's feeling sick. She tells her boss that she thinks this person will be sick tomorrow. The next day comes and that person calls out sick. The boss asks the employee how she knew. She says hes a psychic, You say there's no evidence of it and it's not possible. You win again!
I cannot say that there is no possibility of someone being psychic. Its just that an extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence.
So explain to me with evidence, what are the chances the first person picking d the lotto winner two days in a row. 1,000,000 lotto contestants for each drawing.
Its very low. i think its considered an example of a statistical impossibility. (something statistically impossible is not impossible in practice. just means a very low chance.) but its happened before. so its not impossible.
Your approach is flawed with variables that you have yet to acknowledge are key to the equation. You disregard those data points as feelings. I think your blinded by your own ego.
My approach is sound. I strictly leave out any assumptions and only have room for data that is observable. When new data is presented and observed, its added to the data and considered. If feeling were to change what is object reality, then i would need to consider feeling, but so far I have not seen evidence that they do.
So explain to me with evidence, what are the chances the first person picking d the lotto winner two days in a row. 1,000,000 lotto contestants for each drawing.