The default position.

Had I finished my coffee yet, that would be laughable

I will assume that this is a comment You are neither going to explain or qualify since you find the topic uninteresting, though I've been wrong before.

It could be a list of the world's best yo momma jokes.

If that was supposed to be funny, I suggest you work on your timing.  Your assumption is wrong.

Secularmerlin: I will assume that this is a comment You are neither going to explain or qualify 

Plisken: If that was supposed to be funny, you need to work on your timing.  Your assumption is wrong.

It is not wrong so far although you could still render it wrong simply by explaining or qualifying your comment. 

Perhaps it is punctuation you need to work on.

Is my punctuation confusing you to such a degree that you are unable to explain or qualify your statements?

Let me suggest a different take.

At about 9AM this morning I bought a newspaper.

You can apply all the analysis and logic you like onto that sentence but it won't help you decide it is true.

No it will not. Logic and reason do not necessarily lead to truth without accompanying evidence.

No.  Punctuation aside, inability to come up with wording would have had to do with having not finished my coffee.  It might prove benificial should you separate what you intend to be conveyed as an assumption from what you are using to reason though.

Secularmerlin: I will assume that this is a comment You are neither going to explain or qualify 

As you can see I was clear about what my assumption was. It is only an assumption however and the moment you explain or qualify your statement my assumption would become wrong. That is why assumptions are a poor pathway to truth.

You are stating a half-truth.  You will have to speak with administration to limit what I can see in respect to your statement.  I don't observe that you've taken practical approach to problem solving.

 The postings have all been posted already.....the information that lies within postings is not missing.  Attempting to limit what I can see with respect to postings by quoting only part of a posting is an exercise in futility.

I thought I had quoted the relevant information. If you disagree then please quote what you feel is relevant. Otherwise as with any claim the claimant cannot or will not demonstrate your claim will be dismissed.

Option #1} evidence based on objective and subjective reproduce-able experiences --non-philosophic--

Option #2 } evidence based on rational, logical common sense, --partial philosophy----

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Option #3 }no evidence and irrational, illogical lack of common sense ---no philosophy--- 

Why does your quotation leave the your supposed assumptions to include as clear, unlimited, lacking say...a period?

Thank you. That is certainly more convenient but we still need to address the problem in a practical manner

Ok what's your problem?

I couldn't really think of such a problem as I would appropriate in this context.  

So now there isn't a problem? Did you even have a reason for posting? What did you want to discuss?

What's your point? You don't need to convince me that humans are incapable of objective certainty. You may need to convince me of your claims about objective reality before I am able to accept them however.

you didn't see the image, perhaps. Maybe you thought it was a virus link. let me help you here:

I saw the image. If the point is not that we cannot be certain of the truth then I'm not sure what the point was.

Let's please stop discussing why I'd bet on it being red in the OP scenario, this is very specifically about why I'd bet purple as opposed to rejecting the blue or the red in order to accept the other as valid.

 I do not find a good reason to say that there isn't a problem.  

One reason for posting is that I am interested in the discussion.

 As I understand it, we are discussing with regard to an experiment of design which I assume you understand and we have not truthfully reached a conclusion.  

There are at least two unanswered questions in recent history as I recall off the top of my head.  Those constitute something I would like to discuss, but I do not intend to take on a tangent.

Since there are seven colors in the rainbow and that doesn't include brown black white or grey and since the ball could be dual colored or multicolored and since there could be any number of objects in the box besides a ball or the box could be empty can we at least agree that believing that a purple ball is in the box just because two people who do not know what is in the box claim that it is a red ball or a blue ball doesn't actually improve your chances of being right any more than believing that there is a prismatic cube inside the box as a random decision would? 

The discussion is about whether or not we can accept that the claim of a red ball is enough on its own to justify a belief in a red ball and if belief is not justified wether rejecting the claim obligated one with a burden of proof in the way that the claim itself does.

That is the discussion. If you don't care about the ball that is fine but you can still answer those questions. If you don't intend to answer those questions then you are not actually participating in the discussion.

You may either participate or go off on a tangent but if you cannot answer those questions then you are not participating by default.