[MD] Probability

[Case]

[Platt]
> Since you say we don't have access to the "real reality" it seems to me
> anything anybody says about it is pretty much guess work.

[Case]
Welcome to Philosophy 101.

[Platt]
> Further, your conclusion implies that man is blind because he has eyes,
> deaf because he has ears, deluded because he has a mind, and the things
> he perceives do not exist because he perceives them.

[Case]
It should be fairly obvious that our senses are restricted in the
wavelengths we are sensitive too, the frequencies we can here the
chemicals we can detect. We have evolved a fairly decent set though.

[Platt]
> I reject this attack on man's ability to know reality. In fact, I
> reject the idea of a "real reality" as being redundant. By claiming
> man's perception of reality, since it is mediated by the senses, is
> only indirect, the question arises what would direct perception denote
> and by what means would it be denoted?

[Case]
This is not an attack. This is one of the basic problems of philosophy.

[Platt]
> No, the real guesswork is in the claim we can never know reality
> because our senses distort it by being "one step behind." Since we can
> never know reality, everything we think we know  becomes pure
> speculation. Not only does this declare Pirsig's criterion of truth,
> "agreement with experience," null and void, but puts metaphysics in the
> same category of gnomes, elves, leprechauns and fairies.
>
> But I could be wrong.

[Case]
No you are correct. I hate to be the one to break it to you but
epistomology is a bitch.