[MD] Probability

[Platt Holden]

> [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".

I'm sure you're familiar with perjury.

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

That's absolutely true. You've made my point, again..

> 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.

I'll take your word for it. But I'm not sure it's an absolute truth  
like many truths of the history, such as your birth.   

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

Godel gave us an absolute truth about logical systems being unable to 
prove their own validity. A good example of what I've been talking 
about.

> [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.

I have answered what you've been saying, point by point. I'm sorry you 
don't like the answers. It seems what you consider to be true is an  
absolute in your mind and will tolerate no other viewpoints. Finally, 
agreement among three (you, Gene, Arlo) or three million doesn't 
establish truth.