Ah, a nice cuf of coffee in the morning makes for a great start of the day.
> That coffee isn’t real.
What do you mean? I can feel it in my hands.
> The nerves in your hands are deceiving you. It’s not there.
Alright, Morpheus, but I can can still see it with my eyes.
> You’re wearing VR goggles without knowing it.
But I can still smell it, dude.
> Synthetic smell, made by corporations to have you think it’s there.
But I can hear it being made by the machine.
> Fake news.
Okay, technically you might be right, but your objections can’t be checked. So my conclusion that my coffee is real is not perfectly proven, but it’s beyond reasonable doubt, so I’ll keep it for now.
Philosophers can argue about things for literally years, and they have very interesting methods of reasoning and proving, but in court we have to make decisions somewhat right now. So when something is beyond reasonable doubt, it’s enough to assume the conclusion.
What is considered reasonable doubt, is of course different in a murder case than it it is in a he-stole-my-pokemon-card case.
Latest Answers