in our culture, etc. Therefore, we cannot know things as they are in themselves. When you first hear it you think, 'I haven't quite heard that', but when you look around you start seeing it everywhere, so Stove himself says that the products of a typical modern high school are always telling you that they're not committed to any of their opinion, it's only their opinion. So why don't they believe their opinion, and the reason is because it's their opinion, full stop. He says just because they think they have an opinion, therefore there is no possible external justification for it. It's an argument very well caricatured by another Sydney philosopher Alan Olding. He said, 'It's like saying we have eyes therefore we can't see.' Alan Saunders : Well, let's see what's wrong with this argument. If the premise is that we can know things only under forms of, certain forms of perception and understanding, then we cannot surely draw from that, I agree, the conclusion that we cannot know things in themselves, because perhaps we can, perhaps we've got lucky, but we certainly can't know that we've got lucky, can we? So isn't there a grain of truth in this bad argument? James Franklin : The only grain of truth is that there does need to be some explanation of how knowledge works, but there is reasons for believing in the kind of knowledge we have. A substantial reason for realism is inference to the best explanation. There