You actually consider your suppositions as equal or greater than those who actually have knowledge on the matter and have devoted their entire lives on this... worrisome.
This reminds me how important it is to always remember logic is inferior to empirical knowledge.
I still see no proofs offered, only statements of superiority. It's fine that you don't want to convince me; I'm not particularly interested in convincing you either.
You actually consider your suppositions as equal or greater than those who actually have knowledge on the matter and have devoted their entire lives on this...
That's a bold claim. How do you know that? No one linked the commenter above to any sources with the credentials you mentioned. He literally said, "I have never heard the claim before," so clearly he doesn't think what you're saying.
worrisome.
The only thing that's "worrisome" is the level of condescension in your reply to riverc...
logic is inferior to empirical knowledge.
This is an odd statement about logic. Logic isn't inferior even a little bit, it's just different and would be applied to different situations. And I grant you that history is an example where I would clearly expect empirical evidence to be used instead of logic. Logic and empirical study are both just tools for reasoning about things, and sometimes one tool is better-suited than another for a different task.
You actually consider your suppositions as equal or greater than those who actually have knowledge on the matter and have devoted their entire lives on this... worrisome.
This reminds me how important it is to always remember logic is inferior to empirical knowledge.
I still see no proofs offered, only statements of superiority. It's fine that you don't want to convince me; I'm not particularly interested in convincing you either.
That's a bold claim. How do you know that? No one linked the commenter above to any sources with the credentials you mentioned. He literally said, "I have never heard the claim before," so clearly he doesn't think what you're saying.
The only thing that's "worrisome" is the level of condescension in your reply to riverc...
This is an odd statement about logic. Logic isn't inferior even a little bit, it's just different and would be applied to different situations. And I grant you that history is an example where I would clearly expect empirical evidence to be used instead of logic. Logic and empirical study are both just tools for reasoning about things, and sometimes one tool is better-suited than another for a different task.