LOL, gosh PU, quite an emotional appeal you got therePoeticUniverse wrote: ↑September 17th, 2021, 7:28 pmNo details, just more generalizations about "ad hoc" (need to show), "fallacious" (need to show), "emotional" (show the emotion in the logical treatise), "counter evidence" (show this evidence), "metaphysical claim" (show, for real life physics is used), mentioning "shame" (show what's right or wrong instead of the hint of shaming for being steadfast), "fallacy" (show what it is).3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑September 17th, 2021, 6:07 pm No need to take it personally or emotionally, but please be reminded that yet another logical fallacy was just committed. At the risk of redundancy, I interpret your reply as a type of ad hoc argument which many of us recognize as a fallacious rhetorical strategy very commonplace. As you may know, it occurs when someone's claim is threatened with counterevidence, so they come up with a rationale to dismiss the counterevidence, hoping to protect their original claim. As mentioned, maybe monder some ideas about how to support your metaphysics claim.
There is certainly no shame in committing such fallacy, only shame in continuing along its path
3rd and final request! Three strikes and you are out!
I'm really starting to think that you can't undo it. You generalized twice in a row, as obvious to all readers, not showing any specifics at all.
Want to generalize some more to show the inability to attend to the Answer to Existence? The piece is even divided into chunks so that it is all the more able to be digested.
Cut the blah, blah sideline tangent attempt going into "rationale" and cut to the chase of putting some meat in your reply as to what's right and wrong about the information. Don't let me and others like terrapin station be right about your continued avoidance; so, spit out the details and also cite your correct answer to Existence.
Think deeper before labeling without substantiating again, plus show the counter evidence. Push back without providing the 'why' doesn't cut it, and never will, even thrice in a row.
Anyway, here's what you said:
The ‘nonmaterial’ and ‘nonphysical’
Haven’t shown anything at all to date,
Plus, all the more they’d have to be explained;
The ‘metaphysical’ search has to fail.
Can you provide support for your very general claim about metaphysics? Do you need help in providing examples... ?