[MD] Probability

[Case]

[Platt]
OK by me if I'm on trial or sitting in a jury box judging another accused of
a crime. But certainly not OK if I'm called upon as a witness to tell the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When asked my name and
occupation, I will respond with absolute truth.

[Case]
The best that you can do and all that the court expects you to do is answer
to the best of your ability. The Court is one of the oldest of human
institutions. Certainly the most sophisticated human invention for finding
and determining practical truth, and all it is after is "truth beyond a
reasonable doubt".

Science is a method for testing ideas and validating observation against
theory. It does not recognize or seek after Absolute Truth.

Since at least the 1600's philosophers have noted that there is no standard
for overcoming solipsism, the clever demon problem or any similar
incarnation of the problem.

Gödel showed that even within the logically rigorous and formal systems of
mathematics and symbolic logic, Absolute Truth does not exist.

It seems to me at this point the burden is on you to put up or shut up. 

[Platt]
Sorry about wasting your time. No one has put a gun to your head demanding
that you either read or respond to my posts. If you gain insights from
movies, then you should be able to explain those insights as Pirsig and
others do, by the written word. But perhaps that's asking too much. 

[Case]
I have explained it to you. So has Gene. So has Arlo. We have supplemented
our explanations with references of both a technical and popular nature.
Your attempts at sarcastic rebuttal have added nothing to the dialogue other
than to demonstrate your lack of clarity regarding the issue at hand.

All we have asked is that you try to understand what we are saying and offer
up some kind of informed comment.

But perhaps that's asking too much.