OK, let me show you how it is done. Sit back and pay attention.Chili wrote:Ok great show us how its done instead of just throwing pies and using phrases like "fairy tales" etc.
Let's have a close look at your contributions to this discussion.
First, you came up with a set of inquiries which looked promising for a debate, although it is easily noted that they provided no context, no showing of what relation they had with any particular or general concept from the previous posts. One had to assume their possible implications with the rest of the thread. First sign of an ambiguous, disordered approach to a subject, from a disorderly mind:
Two questions were answered and for the third one it was required clarification. What we got in response? Did we think we would get a rebuttal showing with surgical precision what specific statements failed in logic or missed some facts? Oh, no. What we got is this jewel:Chili wrote: Do you view 'science' as a methodology or a set of truths?
Don't all humans, even those who thoroughly utilize scientific methods, still find themselves embracing beliefs?
Do you view your neighbors as agents?
No argument, no propositions, no precise indication of what's bothering him. Just a snarky remark from a bully.Chili wrote:I'm wondering if you would be ready, willing, and able to add a bit more method to your statements.
And then, after zero contribution and a bit of whining, back to the "method" (more questions):
One of the new questions comes with a premise, more or less equivalent to a statement, but again, exposed ambiguosly, without context, without referencing anything concrete in the discussion, just a vague idea you have in your mind about what other people might believe:Chili wrote:What method do you use to determine if another person is conscious, and agent, or a conscious agent?
At this time already, your own position: still absent. Your point? Still a mystery. That doesn't stop you from setting yourself up to the level of chief magistrate, as if abound with the experience of a whole career of reason and method:Chili wrote:I would think that the most scientific skeptic believes everything around him is the result of "physics, all particles and the void" and then is immediately skeptical that other persons are conscious agents. Do agree with this "maximum skepticism" or do you have sloppy and emotional beliefs about other people being conscious agents?
What are you specifically referring to? We must guess. And then again, more unsubstantiated remarks...Chili wrote: Truly, sir, you are a stranger to rigor and reason. Your own first impression is good enough for you, and you think it should be good enough for others.
Chili wrote: Since you scoff at method itself, happy to embrace whatever gut impression you have,
...and yet more baseless assumptions and pointless questions:
Chili wrote:...you must also applaud the "down to earth" attitude of past cultures who believed in a flat earth? After all, it eschews all this fancy stuff which is the result of logic and experiment.
...endless whining, childish finger-pointing and outright cynicism of demanding rigor, method and argument construction (while not providing absolutely any so far):
Chili wrote:That's you. That's all on you. There's no way to engage you in a more rigorous way if you yourself are just "yelling" yoor overall impressions without backing them up or investigating them.
Now, part two: you won't be able to advance arguments to prove me wrong. If you had ammunition, it would have shown already. We can predict just more whining and snarky remarks.