chownah wrote:
Your mention of probabilities is not appropriate.
How so?
You say, "The evidence is overwhelming in favor of an external world. Maybe not fully conclusive, but still overwhelming."
I said, "it really really really seems like there is an external world but I do not have the faculties to be able to determine that conclusively."
Yes, sorry if I was supposed to take these two statements as synonymous and failed to do so. I interpreted yours differently, after reading it again I realise I simply misinterpreted it, sorry about this.
chownah wrote: The latest example: "saying that both hypotheses are equally likely is another and that we can't favor one over the other really looks exaggerated to me". I never said this and did not even imply it. This is totally your fabrication.....I think this is what is called a strawman arguement. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
You never said this but you're not saying you agree either. Sorry I've always had trouble with ambiguous positions. But if I should take it as agreement, then everything is settled for me. About the strawman, I'm just a bit sad that you keep ascribing such intentions to my postings, but I'll survive... thanks for your patience...