Tom,

We have gone back and forth so much in this discussion that I think
it's important to focus on the central points, that I feel you are
rigorously dodging.

The points I'm making are that, regardless of whether lay language
sources like non-scientific dictionaries take note of this are not:

1) All facts are just theories that have been satisfactorily confirmed
(beyond a "reasonable" doubt).
2) "Evidence" is simply "that which helps to ascertain the probability
of an assertion's veracity".

These statements are, I feel, so immediately obvious that they barely
warrant justification, but for some they will, so I have provided
that.

1) Anything that you consider to be an empirical fact is based on your
assessment of reality.  There are a lot of more subtle arguments I
could make about this, but for the sake of expediency I'll use the
Matrix analogy.  For all you know, the very discussion you think you
are having with me right now is only an illusion, and the monitor you
see before you is nothing but electronic impulses being fed into your
mind by a sophisticated virtual reality system.  That is arguably
quite unlikely, but by no means impossible.  That leads us to my
second statement...

2) Since all any observation can do is serve to strengthen or weaken
our certainty in something, evidence is by its very nature simply a
thing which helps us ascertain probability.  Take any ol' murder case,
such as the O.J. Simpson murder case, for instance.  It is impossible
to say with 100% certainty that he in fact killed those people, but
many people believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Even the very
mention of the term "reasonable doubt" is a nod to the concept of
probability.  When DNA experts speak about a match between a specific
sequence of DNA from a crime scene sample and a suspect, they often
talk about the probability that two random people would have the given
amount of DNA letters in common by pure chance.  The lower the
probability of that, the greater the probability that the accused did
in fact commit the crime.

Both of my claims here are trivial, obvious, and easily provable.  Yet
you refuse to accept, for instance, that all facts are just
satisfactorily probable theories, even going so far as to call this my
"opinion" after I've handily proven it.  I say the onus is on you to
point to a single counter-example in the world, of an empirical fact
in which we have 100% certainty.  Say you look at my house and it
appears blue.  You say that it is a "fact" that it is blue.  For all
you know, advanced technology is being employed to shift the frequency
of the light reflected off the house from red to blue - so the house
is actually red, and you just _perceive_ it to be blue.  That's not my
"opinion" - that's a plausible (no matter how improbable) scenario.
Therefore the "fact" that the house is blue is simply a strongly
supported _theory_, like all facts are.

You can maintain otherwise until you're blue in the face (or red?),
but debate requires saying more than "that's your opinion", as you
have done with me.  I've challenged you to provide counter-examples -
cases of "verifiable fact" that are known with 100% certainty, rather
than simply being sufficiently probable theories.  I know that you
can't, and the point that you still haven't despite our many
exchanges, simply reinforces my case.

You have replied to me with illusory statements, saying things such
as, "You are operating on YOUR reality. My grasp on reality is
different than yours."  Regardless of your grasp on reality, that
doesn't change certain fundamental realities.  You can try to fly, for
instance, by insisting that your view of reality says you should be
able to; but I'll bet you won't try it.  You cannot escape the very
real (provable!) possibility that what you believe to be reality is
completely different from reality, such that everything you know to be
a "fact" is actually wrong.  To assert that facts are not just well
supported theories (as you have done) is to assert that you somehow
KNOW that "this isn't the Matrix" and "Tom Smith is not
hallucinating".  But you obviously can't know that!  If you think you
have a way of proving you're not in the Matrix or proving you're sane,
I challenge you to lead the next great philosophical revolution.
Otherwise, admit you're hopelessly defeated in this argument.  You can
claim we have different views on reality, but I can prove mine.  You
can't even provide EVIDENCE for yours.

Finally I want to respond specifically to something you said, which
shows you are still just not GETTING it.

1) "We are here debating" is a highly probable THEORY, but you could
be hallucinating our conversations.  You could be in a tub of liquid,
with wires patched into your brain relaying the convincing sense that
you are gazing into a monitor at this very moment, when in fact you
are not.  Hence the point that facts, e.g. "we are fruitlessly
debating", are simply satisfactorily evinced theories.  Again, I just
PROVED this, so a response would be an attempt to show a flaw in that
proof; saying "that's your opinion" is not an argument - it's second
grade nostalgia.

2) QED is a statement for math only, not the empirical realm.  You
don't "prove" anything in real life, just in pure math.

I don't see how you can have a strong argument when you've offered NO
argument.  I am not invalidating the English definition you use.  It's
fair to say that fact is verifiable data.  But to "verify" something
in the empirical world only means "to be convinced of its satisfactory
certainty".  If I go verify that my car hasn't been keyed, I haven't
_proven_ that it hasn't been keyed.  Maybe it has been, but the
photons bouncing off it are rearranging themselves in mid air so as to
hide the damage, due to some rare natural anomaly.  It's possible, but
given that I have two explanations for the appearance of my car's
having not been keyed

1) It wasn't keyed.
2) It was keyed but is being covered up by an insanely rare anomaly

it is clear that the former is vastly more probable, and so is the
better conclusion.  It is sufficiently probable as to call it a
"fact".  But it is not "provable", because nothing can be proven in
the empirical realm.  All we have is varying degrees of certainty.

How MUCH certainty?  90% certainty?  99% certainty? 99.999%?  You tell
me since you want to play teacher instead of learning something.

The majority of the rest of your email is just you looking at a
dumbfoundingly simple proof and saying "that's just your opinion",
which is just pathetic.  I really think you ought to be a little
ashamed of yourself for wasting my time and yours like that, instead
of actually trying to think of a counter-argument.

Hoping that there's still hope for you to learn,
Clay