Greta wrote: ↑
January 23rd, 2020, 9:36 pm
The post you're quoting has nothing to do with that.
You intimated that we are incapable of comprehending others' comments properly, which is a stereotype akin to saying that white men can't jump.[/quote]
I made a comment about him not understanding the comment in question, on that occasion. That in no way amounts to a "stereotype." (As if there's anything inherently wrong with stereotypes, by the way, but that's another discussion.) The reasons I gave for him not understanding the comment on that occasion had nothing to do with "being on the spectrum."
You didn't understand the comment you were responding to, either. Is that a "stereotype" somehow.
And there's no "proper comprehension" by the way.
Your response is scientifically orthodox.
That would be fine if it were--it's not as if I'm categorically opposed to that. I'd prefer that everyone agree with me, really, as I actually hate "arguing." But physicists, particularly, usually argue with my ontology of time, because they see motion as being defined as change of position over time. Without thinking about it much, they balk at the idea of defining motion as "change of position over motion"--since the word being defined occurs in the definition in that case, and in general, I commonly get the tactic of objections based on word substitution not working, a la "The time of object A relative to object B" being a substitution for "The motion of object A relative to object B."
Of course, my ontology of time isn't a claim about word substitution in natural languages as they're conventionally used, and it's not a claim about how most people normally think about time (which leads to word usage).
If you are basing your ideas on our bodies of knowledge, why disagree when it's suggested that commentators should consult the specialist bodies of knowledge established by the geniuses of the past before deciding on such things?
The only thing I'm objecting to is anything that smells of either arguments from authority or argumentum ad populums (with respect to particular populations).
If people considered experts are right about something, it's not because they're experts[//i] or because the majority of them agree with each other. It would be a contingent matter that they're right. They could just as well be wrong. Someone being considered an expert in something is a social fact, about how they've adapted to particular sets of social norms.