Correct: I am not interested in jumping through the idiosyncratic set of hoops you choose to set up.
it’s dishonest (or ignorant?) [...]
Why?
arguments you don’t wish to learn
Don’t wish to learn them? True enough. I don’t see your relationship to me as being that of teacher to learner. I’d be interested to hear what they are, though, if you could drop the superior attitude and try having an actual discussion.
I don’t see what your comment is supposed to accomplish.
It is supposed to point out some errors in things you wrote, and to answer some questions you raised.
you have 1.8 of your feet out the door.
Does that actually mean anything? If so, what?
you aren’t really looking to have a conversation to resolve the matter.
I am very willing to have a conversation. I am not interested in straitjacketing that conversation with the arbitrary rules you keep trying to impose (“paths forward”), and I am not interested in replacing the (to me, potentially interesting) conversation about probability and science and reasoning and explanation and knowledge with the (to me, almost certainly boring and fruitless) conversation about “paths forward” that you keep trying to replace it with.
why speak at all?
See above. You said some things that I think are wrong, and you asked some questions I thought I could answer. It’s not my problem that you’re unable or unwilling to address any of the actual content of what I say and only interested in meta-issues.
[EDITED because I noticed I wrote “conservation” where I meant “conversation” :-)]
that’s an impasse, created by you. you won’t use the methodology i think is needed for making progress, and won’t discuss the disagreement. a particular example issue is your hostility to the use of references.
Yup. I’m not interested in jumping through the idiosyncratic set of hoops you choose to set up.
that’s an impasse, created by you.
Curiously, I find myself perfectly well able to conduct discussions with pretty much everyone else I encounter, including people who disagree with me at least as much as you do. That would be because they don’t try to lay down a bunch of procedural rules and refuse to engage unless I either follow their rules or get sidetracked onto a discussion of those rules. So … nah, I’m not buying “created by you”. I’m not the one who tried to impose the absurdly over-demanding set of procedural rules on a bunch of other people.
your hostility to the use of references
You just made that up. I am not hostile to the use of references.
(Maybe I objected to something you did that involved the use of references; I don’t remember. But if I did, it wasn’t because I am hostile to the use of references.)
Correct: I am not interested in jumping through the idiosyncratic set of hoops you choose to set up.
Why?
Don’t wish to learn them? True enough. I don’t see your relationship to me as being that of teacher to learner. I’d be interested to hear what they are, though, if you could drop the superior attitude and try having an actual discussion.
It is supposed to point out some errors in things you wrote, and to answer some questions you raised.
Does that actually mean anything? If so, what?
I am very willing to have a conversation. I am not interested in straitjacketing that conversation with the arbitrary rules you keep trying to impose (“paths forward”), and I am not interested in replacing the (to me, potentially interesting) conversation about probability and science and reasoning and explanation and knowledge with the (to me, almost certainly boring and fruitless) conversation about “paths forward” that you keep trying to replace it with.
See above. You said some things that I think are wrong, and you asked some questions I thought I could answer. It’s not my problem that you’re unable or unwilling to address any of the actual content of what I say and only interested in meta-issues.
[EDITED because I noticed I wrote “conservation” where I meant “conversation” :-)]
you have openly stated your unwillingness to
1) do PF
2) discuss PF or other methodology
that’s an impasse, created by you. you won’t use the methodology i think is needed for making progress, and won’t discuss the disagreement. a particular example issue is your hostility to the use of references.
the end.
given your rules, including the impasse above.
Yup. I’m not interested in jumping through the idiosyncratic set of hoops you choose to set up.
Curiously, I find myself perfectly well able to conduct discussions with pretty much everyone else I encounter, including people who disagree with me at least as much as you do. That would be because they don’t try to lay down a bunch of procedural rules and refuse to engage unless I either follow their rules or get sidetracked onto a discussion of those rules. So … nah, I’m not buying “created by you”. I’m not the one who tried to impose the absurdly over-demanding set of procedural rules on a bunch of other people.
You just made that up. I am not hostile to the use of references.
(Maybe I objected to something you did that involved the use of references; I don’t remember. But if I did, it wasn’t because I am hostile to the use of references.)