Ah, seems like you folks arguing from two different Epistemologies? [1]

We already know that two different Epistemologies won't necessarily map perfectly to each other, though you might get close.

Might still be interesting to compare notes on what you can and can't predict/achieve with each!

[1] Edit : I can't quite lay my finger on which epistemologies exactly. Tsimionescu is using strong Empirical arguments, while mjburgess is inspired on Searle, which is pretty apt here, of course!