Your arithmetic is not relevant to my point because as I said, when normalized to the same domain, it is valid.
> Which, once again, must imply that you have confidence in that evidence.
Nope, think of it as a bayesian update which induces a non-zero but low relative entropy, with respect to the new posterior distribution.
> normalized to just this setting
> normalized to the same domain
What do you mean by "normalized" ? What "setting" ? What "domain" ?
> Nope, think of it as …
Think of it as being honest or not being honest.
Invalid + Invalild != Valid
> they do have utility as a coarse indicator
Which, once again, must imply that you have confidence in that evidence.