Hi Luis,

Often discussions don't even get started until we clear away a lot of the misunderstanding. I hope we are moving closer to that point.

>>>H: "The reason is that if do not treat our assumptions as overall correct (~99.999..999%) then we to recoil to extreme skepticism which itself is an assumption of how to treat knowledge..." L: Again, I'd agree (but I don't think Panentheism -- or any religion for that matter -- allows anything less than 100% belief).H: "All we want to know is whether we are scientifically justified or not in saying that a separate object has enough unique properties to say it exists." L: Again, I would not disagree. This is an important distinction I've made before – the distinction that this scientific justification often confuses some into thinking we have arrived at absolute, metaphysical certitude.>>H: "This doesn't solve the probability issue that I posed to you on how certainty diminishes as we progress in our uncertainty. How do you deal with that dilemma?" L: No dilemma... remember, I do not think *anything* is 100%, and your proposed 'dilemma' employed terms like "100% uncertainty." Recall that I have stated, ”an agnostic believes that gnosticism is impossible." This notion includes knowing that a thing is "100% uncertain."

• Beheaded Chickens - luis_hamburgh - October 9, 2001 - 00:09 UTC