Yes, hand me two furniture and a dozen personal goods.
I'm assessing the meaning of your words.
You assess wrongly.
your statements, here and before, clearly draw a distinction between math and logic (mere "abstracts") on the one hand, and reality on the other.
There is a distinction. And your assessment of "mere" abstracts is also wrong. Abstracts are more powerful than mere concretes but become damaging and dangerous when confused with concretes, the meaning of the word "reification."
What you have said, flat out, is that mathematical or logical results are irrelevant to your statements about reality, because logic and math are not "reality."
I said no such thing. I said that they are valuable ('relevant' in your liberal, touchy feely language) to the degree that they accurately describe reality.
There is some dispute about that, as suggested by the question: is mathematics invented or discovered?
Invented, otherwise no one could ever make any mistakes concerning it. Begs the Question - Invented by whom?
Einstein didn't invent a way to describe something he already knew, which is what "maps" are all about. Instead, math took him to places he didn't know, and it appears that it did so correctly -- suggesting that there is some connection between math and reality that mere "map-making" cannot explain.
If a person creates a map that documents there is a shoreline here and then 1000 miles away a shoreline there, then why is anybody surprised when there is a body of water discovered in between? This goes back to what I said about abstracts and the inability of the concrete bound mind to differentiate between the difference.
If we use mathematical results to conclude that some scientific hypotheses are not worth pursuing, then that is an example of "proving a negative."
You clearly don't have any understanding of the fundamentals of logic. I didn't "invent" Can't Prove a Negative, this is a standard logical fallacy. If you don't understand or accept it, it only proves your ignorance of standard scientific criteria for evidence.
Your use \of "by definition" seems to be applied as an attempt to close off discussion before it starts.
It only seems that way to you because you don't get it. When a premise contradicts itself by its very definition it is invalid and no longer worthy of consideration.
For example, to say:
The earth contains the solar system.
Is a contradiction in terms. The earth is a lesser part of the solar system so cannot contain it, by definition.
By analogy to say:
The Supernatural is scientifically verifiable.
Is a contradiction in terms because there is no evidence of the Supernatural in the natural world, by definition.
It is really very simple, which is probably what throws you.
Ah, yes. If all else fails (and for you it has), resort to accusations of "liberalism."
You do a whole bunch of asserting, and little or no proving. Call us back when you can live up to your screen name.
Every phenomenon can be explained by natural causes. Every phenomenon can be explained by supernatural causes. From a scientific standpoint the distinction is moot. From a philosophical standpoint it is not.
Science takes what it does not understand and applies what we call "natural" meanings. The application of a meaning, or degree of human understanding, has no effect upon the reality of the thing. One may proudly take the stand that there is no such thing as the supernatural. Few scientists go that far. If there really is such a thing, then why should it be declared out of bounds for science? Science is entitled to explore everything that may be real.
There is nothing unscientfic about inferring a designer where design is present. There is plenty philosophical in asserting design is the product of anything but a designer.