Anti-Foundation+Rule

The Anti-Foundation rule should actually switch names with The Foundation Rule for it does what it says. It is **Something cannot exist until its existence has been proven****.** To begin I will use an architectural metaphor: Even the tallest skyscraper is only as strong as its foundation. Everything needs a strong foundation in order for logical sense to be made out of it. Much of Storkology is based on assumptions, logical assumptions, but nonetheless assumptions. Even in science today much is based off of assumptions. Science is theories being refined and refined again with radical changes being discovered day by day. We cannot take for granted that some variable not known to us takes part in some experiment, completely changing the result. Until every single component to an experiment has been isolated we cannot be certain of the results; we can be confident of them, but never certain. This can also therefore be applied to our lives in general. There is so much we do not know; therefore, there is nothing we do know. Nothing can be known for certain and is proved by this very page. Stork itself cannot be proved true. Nothing can truly be "proved" true. Therefore the Foundation Rule and the Law of Ambiguity among others cannot possibly be true, at least for now. [F.M.]-I had already anticipated such a response. For everybody else, The Sir of Poignancy has not read all the other theorems in Storkology, so he is unaware that my postulates have already taken care of this anti-rule. He claims to have whupped me, but I whupped him before he was aware of it. Ha!thtbhtbhbhtbbhtbbht!