Vaihingier's claim that "we do not know objective reality absolutely but only infer it" raises the gnarly problem of what it is to know at all. There is a " correctness" between thought and the results of the actions those thoughts motivate. This correctness is a sort of predictability that when "x" action takes place "y" result will occur. The question as to whether "y" will result from action "x" can actually be known has been taken up by Hume. His argument was that since the bar of certainty was set so high by Descartes, one cannot by definition count such a relationship of "x" to "y" as knowledge. But we can know with certainly that it should. The upshot here is that "x" resulting in "y" is not the known. The known is the predictability of the relationship. So even if the corroboration between "x" and "y" were less than 1, that is, if there were two two possible outcomes, the relationship would still be known in that the result should be either this or that. Ironically, what can be known are general conditions. When conditions are added that require higher degrees of numerical occurency the ability to claim knowledge of it goes down. For the moment, I don't wish to hash the problems that Descartes introduced regarding knowledge. The has been done in spades by Heidegger and Putnam just o name two people. The legacy of Descartes' redefinition of knowledge is that our interpersonal communication gets muddled up. When someone tells us that they know something, we don't know if they mean knowing in terms of factuality or in terms o f familiarity. I'm sure that most people don't even know the distinction. The issue comes out most clearly when speaking with evangelical Christians. The terminology used, namely "belief' and "knowing" allow for a transposition from a state of belief of suspicion or assumption to a state of knowledge seemingly without further evidence. The same evidence provides the basis for both the belief and the knowledge. What is omitted, however, is experience. Christian of this sort focus on the scriptural underpinnings of their beliefs and see the corroboration of that! in there lives. Thus, they have a claim to knowing that Descartes and the scientific community take for granted. The knowing that Christians speak of is the knowing of place. It is the knowledge of familiarity. Friction arise when the knowledge of familiarity is claimed to be the knowledge on fact. And in this friction lies a whole heap of trouble.