Your problem is not that you work with the evidence you have, your problem is that you view your limited viewpoint as if it encompasses certainty and anyone who isn't certain is either crazy or stupid.


As Daevryn's been mentioning, all I'm doing is using words in the context they're generally given. No scientific theory is or can be proven in some sort of exaggerated 100.00000000000000....% fashion., no matter how many observations people make. But no one asks if you "believe in gravity", even though our understanding of evolution is in many ways superior.

Otherwise, you're in a vacuum, claiming no one can or does know anything, or ever has. It's utterly useless for discussion. It doesn't make one a skeptic, just a contrarian, and it's not a tactic that most people will tolerate for long in a serious discussion.

So what most people do is assume that we can interact with the universe in a meaningful, and that knowledge is possible. If someone asked how to fix their car, and you responded "Cars aren't certain to exist.", you'd be regarded as either crazy or facetious.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com