Tastes of joy . I loves that game <| sep |> When is this update going live ? Are we still getting German DD ' s with it ? <| sep |> It is a very sensible % when you could include every bit of relevant scientific information , gleaned from literally thousands of scientific studies and experiments , in your calculation . The chances of all that information being right and agreeing by coincidence is most definitely zeropointan absolute ton of zerosone %. Much like the chance of the translation being correct by chance in the above analogy . We ' re arguing because we don ' t agree the fact that you ' re commenting at all indicates we don ' t agree . We certainly agree that one can only choose axioms and go from there which occurs at a much deeper philosophical level than the discussion we ' re having here , but disagree that we can only ' assume our rationality ' in order to conclude that it exists . We need merely to hypothesise that we can sometimes be rational and careful , and rigorous etc . enough to sometimes gain mostly accurate information about reality . Human beings are not always rational or even often rational where certain emotionallycharged and evolutionarilyuseless subjects are concerned , but by hypothesising that we can sometimes gain mostly accurate information about reality , we ' ve constructed amongst other things the modern body of scientific knowledge . That body of knowledge based on evidence gathered using the scientific method is unequivocal on OP ' s question , so to maintain your position you ' d need to argue that the knowledge we ' ve gained through science is inadmissable in questions about reality . Or that anything less than metaphysical certitude can ' t think of a single question philosophers would agree that applies is useless ? That without MC , one answer is as good as another ?