Asfm for your first, it doesn't make sense to draw those distinctions and you saying otherwise is question begging in this context. Argue a case. That is, address the OP, rather than just insist it is false. — Bartricks
what makes you think you're a good judge of replies to criticisms? — Bartricks
It's the actual level of expertise — Bartricks
Do you have any expertise? — Bartricks
You think that if 10 people with no expertise whatsoever think a highly qualified person is talking shite, then it is the highly qualified person who is most likely manifesting the effect and not the 10 thickies?!? — Bartricks
Go back and reflect on the replies you have received. What agreement have you garner? And what have you said to those who disagree with you?
Why have you been subject to such animosity? — Banno
What would happen if a professional philosopher came on this site without anyone knowing that they were an expert? — Bartricks
or discuss with colleagues. — Bartricks
they might be made to attend some tedious and pointless lecture — Bartricks
And as for your charming comment "all of your posts are trash", all I can say is: Dunning and Kruger. I feel the same way about yours. The difference is that's an expert's judgement of a fool, not a fool's judgement of an expert . — Bartricks
What would happen if a professional philosopher came on this site without anyone knowing that they were an expert? What would Dunning and Kruger predict, Banno? Would they predict that all the ignorant people would recognize the philosopher for the expert they were? Or would they predict that the philosopher would quickly be judged a total idiot by virtually everyone? — Bartricks
if you just stuck to trying to argue something I wouldn't mention it. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.