Westbrick
I've concluded that talking to you is a dead loss.
You're trying to argue with an imaginary version of me who is making all the standard philosophical arguments for science (using the terms that THEY USE instead of the terms that I USE), not trying to make sure you understand my position before you started attacking it.
For example, when I was unclear about my use of the word "intelligibility" in response to your post about intelligibility, I didn't specify which definition I was using (and I should have asked for clarification). I gave several examples of what I thought intelligibility was, You say that I demonstrated a sophomoric understanding understanding of the word from western philosophy's PoV ,when there was no explicit mention of us agreeing to use that view. When I point this out, you reframe this point of confusion as me not having read up on background information that no one had made reference to. So of course, I say that I'm not trying to reference the western philosophical tradition, you (willfully?) misinterpret that as me trying to assert my creative independence from all other thought (???).
And this is just ONE conversational thread.
You do not try and engage with the other party in a meaningful fashion. You do not try and go beyond simple contradiction. You do not try and make yourself clear to the other party.
There is no point in talking to you.
Maybe you'll think of this as a triumph, but you have failed to change the other party's mind, failed to convey any new information and failed address the point the other person was making. Any gain comes from simple posturing. We are both worse people for having participated in this conversation.
If you wish to pursue this point further, I have provided two links earlier in the topic, I will try to clear up any confusion curious onlookers have (lol). But otherwise you can consider this conversation "won".
Jeffrey:
I want to know if I understood you correctly, so I'm going to try and extend certain things I think you left implicit and check to see if it fits your worldview.
When you see the bird, you gain the property of having seen a bird.
Can we also conclude other properties such as "the bird exists", "the bird was doing _____ when I saw it" from "I saw a bird today?"
The following is a ranking of truth values:
I saw a bird at 4:23, 20 seconds today > I saw a bird at about 4:00PM today > I saw the bird today = I saw a bird on April 14th.
Now I'm going to reverse the inequalities
I saw a bird. < I saw a blue throated thrush. < I saw a blue throated thrush, from my knowledge of biology I can say X, Y, Z properties the bird has.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!