But even if that doesn't work, because the snowflakes are only a misleading resemblance born of other pathways, there's knowledge Keltham has which is more valuable than that, and which is even more likely to hold here; it may hold everywhere, though it is hard to be quite certain of that without observing everywhere.

This is the knowledge of the Laws of thought.

But even if that part doesn't work out, because the snowflakes - it may turn out - are only a misleading resemblance born of other pathways, there's knowledge Keltham has which is more valuable than that, and which is even more likely to hold here; hidden order that may hold everywhere, though it is hard to be quite certain of that without observing everywhere.

This is the knowledge of the Laws of thought.

But even if that part doesn't work out, because the snowflakes - it may turn out - are only a misleading resemblance born of other pathways, there's knowledge Keltham has which is more valuable than that, and which is even more likely to hold here; a collection of hidden orders that might hold even everywhere, though it is hard to be quite certain of that, without observing everywhere.

This is the knowledge of the Laws governing attempts to think, which have the character of - wait, Keltham hasn't explained the difference between empirical truths and necessary truths.  Does everyone here already happen to know the difference between empirical truths and necessary truths?  He's kind of guessing not, based on some previous exchanges about 2 + 2 = 5; if not, he can cover that too.  The notion of Validity is as good a place as any to give an example of Laws governing thought.