Opening line: "What did Ludwig Wittgenstein mean by comparing a philosophical problem to a magic trick? Ask professional magicians." Without having fully read

Opening line: "What did Ludwig Wittgenstein mean by comparing a philosophical problem to a magic trick? Ask professional magicians." Without having fully read the article, my take would be that it relates to verification. A philosopher (I think) is prepared to consider those things generally accepted as truth but which he cannot verify personally as 'open to interpretation'. He would be prepared to review what that would mean if those assumptions were incorrect. In a similar yet reversed way, a conjurer is attempting to trick your verification and make you accept as truth something which is actually false - if one's senses are misled this enables the trick. Both relate to verification and the tricks that are played. Both philosopher and conjurer are in the 'meta domain' - ie away from the standard, normal understanding of sense data. In answer to the question in the opening line, the answer is that there can only be one answer - there is objective truth. However, humans limited sense data may prevent us knowing that answer sometimes. In those cases, in the absence of an easy or obvious answer, philosophers may use their framework and language to provide something that seems to answer our question. (Apparently, we need answers and cannot live with uncertainty - without a second thought we accept philosophical/religious/linguistic trickery as true rather than be scrupulous in reviewing our untested assumption to reveal the trick.) But the truth is singular but the (philosophical) explanations are multiple - they could all be wrong. Those framework answers could be wrong. The moral - for me - in this story is that scepticism about all sense data is advised, and all provided frameworks that have been provided without being based in personal verification. Whether that is news, corporate statements, TV, beneficent philanthropists, history, science, even family members (the later may be unintentionally bought in) - all can mislead us, creating (or parroting) satisfactory stories that may not relate to an objective truth, even if they say they do. In fact there is a nefarious angle to this - if a conjurer is able to trick most people that may provide an advantage - in the absence of good information the conjurer is able to harness our energy/resources/times/money to their ends.