You're kind of right. But transitivity does hold in logic. What you've written just isn't an example of it.
Touche what I should have said is "In mathematics it is always true that if A=B and B=C then A=C (to my rather limited knowledge) while in logic this not the case <insert example proving claim>"
Actually I was wrong in my above post. You can prove a negative empirically. You claim bigfoot exists. I claim he doesn't. You find bigfoot. You have proven to me that it is NOT the case that bigfoot does not exist. Haha.
This is technically true but I would is say that it is practically false, which is the point I was trying to make. hehe!
Knowing beyond a doubt (absolute knowledge) of the future cannot be acquired empirically. Even with the help of "hard" sciences. Just because you repeat an experiment over and over again and get the same result, does NOT (to be strict) mean that the same thing will happen tomorrow. We just assume it will. Social science is one step less precise, not because the systems are more complex, but because you can't recreate situations or control the variables at play. The physical universe isn't less complex, it's just that we can assume away variables that we think are unimportant and actually get away with it (most of the time).