The idea that any of it can achive the degree of certainty that one can hold about physical matter is absurd.
First of all, "certainty" has no degrees... I defined the word certain a while ago. If you are certain, then you are sure, etc... The physical matter just is... Or is it? Is the physical world flat? (it was for thousands of years with a large "degree of certainty"). Is the ... oh, never mind...
Everything is an abstraction - filtered, punctuated, abstracted, or in someway abbreviated to help us describe OUR VERSION OF REALITY OR THE TRUTH. It does not mean that we currently CAN or necessarily ever CAN understand what they really are... Rocks come closer than general concepts, but none are "real".
The premise that I have the most problem with is that Marlowe assumes that people who are "relativists", such as myself, can only come to the logical conclusion that my thought process = "sit and whine about how there is no truth". To me, it (my belief there is no absolute truth) is just a given in my shorthand for the "equation" of the "truth" and I try to be even more careful about how I conduct my work, my life, etc...
Even using his own "logic" about the truth, he fails to use logic or to admit that his "truth" is just as fucked up as EVERYONE elses. And this is in a metaphysical discussion. Now take it to a political discussion... Mooohahahahahahahahah...
Let's take it to politics... Is George W. a buffoon? No. Was Dan Quale... No. Was Bill Clinton. No. Each of these men hold graduate degrees from Ivy League colleges. Each has done "good things". Each has done things different than I would have liked or expected men in their positions to. So to compare them is an excersize in applying subjective values.
Take Clinton's impeachment for example. I felt (personally) disillusioned by what he did. On my scale, it was enough to feel that I wished he resigned. Ashton and Khasim didn't feel it was enough for them. Am I right or are they? Right now in my life, fidelity to my wife and to my word mean a lot. I am not going to be insulting enough to suggest that they mean less to Ashton and Bradioch. But they apparently have subjectively judged that the "good" that this man did outweighed the "indiscretion". Now, I will appeal all I want, using whatever "facts" I have, but it still doesn't take into account things like the "value" of these "facts" in an overall decision. I would no more claim that Ashton or Brandioch are "wrong" about the way the feel, than I would claim I'm "right". I just feel a certain way. It is my "reality" that I can't seem to change. But it is "my" reality.
I went through excrutiating debates in the old IWE forums proposing the Agnostic position toward Christianity and Atheism, pissing off both sides. The basis of this philosophy is that we are unable to KNOW (determine) whether God (the Truth, Reality, etc...) exists or not. That it is beyond our comprehension to know. PERIOD.
The key thing I keep coming back to is that this (agnosticism or relativism) is not a "paralyzing" philosophy. It just is "a" philosophy. I don't know "for sure" anything, but I also believe that noone else does either. That doesn't make me feel superior or inferior. So what's the problem here guys? :-)