[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]
Are you certain Philosophy 101 says our knowledge of reality is pretty
much guess work?

[Case]
I think most would dress it up in prettier language but that is the bottom
line.

> [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]
Have not our instruments overcome some of our senses' shortcomings?

[Case]
Instrumentation can extend our senses but not overcome the problem.

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

[Platt]
How would knowledge of reality gleaned from direct perception differ from
our "second hand" knowledge of reality?

[Case]
Not at all. That is what I said: knowledge gleaned for our senses is all
the knowledge of reality we have. At least that is the empiricist view.
There are those who subscribe to knowledge obtained through revelation.
You might find them more to your liking. But this still does not give you
direct knowledge of anything.

Here is a brief intro to the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecthood

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

[Platt]
Then why aren't we discussing Mother Goose instead of the MOQ?

[Case]
I thought most people involved in these discussions were aware of these
problems. There are a vast number of threads devoted to it. I think the
subject is facinating. But perhaps in your case it is an aversion to
rhyme.