> Epistemology 101. Statistical pattern matching has no epistemological truth beyond a correspondence of linguistic statistics. It is merely statistical

Your belief in epistemic truth is a statistical inference from your perception of apparently reliable causality. How do you ground this inductive inference?

Your attempt to appeal to epistemology 101 with a casual dismissal as "mere statistical probability" covers this deep, gaping maw. Bayesian inference reduces to classical logic when all probabilities are pinned to 0 and 1, but in what circumstances can we actually demonstrably infer absolute certainty? None that I can think of, except one's own existence.