ur reasoning. You said "probably", that is where your error occurs. Let me ask you, what determines probability?Joe: I guess you need to have trials, and something to compare the trials with. Like a certain number of times you roll a five on a die.Craig: Right, you need a sample population. Now think about that in the context of your argument. To prove that there "probably" is an external world you need to have a sample population of times when you were right about the external world, and when you were incorrect about the external world. And what is this all presented to you by? Your sense data (which is already proven unreliable). To prove this I would have to know the answer to the question I am asking. You see, you wanted to know if the external world really exists, and to prove this probably you have to know when you were correct and not correct about the existence of the external world. This is a fallacy, or error in reasoning, this particular fallacy is called "begging the question" fallacy. Which is basically a fallacy that tries to explain the question by relying on information that the original question is trying to ask. For me to prove this "probable" external world. I would have to (for the lack of a better word) "crawl" outside of my subjective body and observe when I was wrong and/or right about my sense data inferences. This is completely inconceivable. This egocentric predicament is that we are "trapped" in our senses and totally rely on them, even if they are wrong. Therefore, sense data cannot even probably determine the existence of the external world, and the existence of Sport (the dog) on the mat over there.Joe: Alright, I get your point. So how about this. I am seeing Sport on the mat. The best explanation for having these sense data is that there is in fact a dog on the mat. If you think about it and the other possibilities you have given me, the one that makes the most sense is the hypothesi...
