Reality just doesn't exist for you, does it?
1) it's so trite, it's not worth nearly the fuss he makes
Okay, yet this does seem to be at odds with your earlier statements about you being closer to "The Truth" because your method "works".
Allow me to re-fresh your memory of what Scott said:
His coin toss example simply shows that how you arrive at the "truth" - the correct number - depends on the ground rules for the search.
So, because you've already determined what the ground rules are (ie. what "works" for you) you've already established what "Truth" you'll find.
2) it really has nothing to do with anything that went before.
That's strange. I would say that it has EVERYTHING to do with what "went before". Because >YOU< were the one making statements about the "Truth". I illustrated how you don't have any idea what the "Truth" is. All you know is what your >OPINION< is.
Then you went off about how your opinion is closer to "The Truth" because your opinion "works".
In other words, you've established the ground rules for yourself for the search for "The Truth" and those ground rules will result in a certain "Truth" being found (whether that "Truth" is actually "The Truth" or not).
Now, how can you say that it has nothing to do with the discussion?
I'll say it again, your >OPINION< is nothing more than your >OPINION< and the ONLY reason you think it has any relation to "The Truth" is that it is your >OPINION<.
But I see a pattern here: Brandioch spews this crap in response to anything he doesn't agree with, rather than make a coherent fact-based argument.
So, Marlowe starts a discussion about what colour the tooth fairey's house is. I say there isn't a tooth fairey. Marlowe says I'm not bringing any "facts" to the discussion?
And here you go actually thinking he's trying to make some kind of a point.
I think I have made my point. There is NO tooth fairey. That means there is no tooth fairey's house. So arguing about what colour it is or saying that someone else is thinking of the wrong colour is idiotic. But you'll keep doing it.
He's not trying to make a point, about truth or anything else.
My point was that what you say is "The Truth" is nothing more than your >OPINION<. Also that the search for "The Truth" will always be meaningless because you will ALWAYS be constrained by your pre-conceptions and opinions.
Just like in my math example. You can get ever closer to "The Truth" and actually think you're accomplishing something when you're just stringing unrelated incidents together.
He's trying to pass off his intellectual incomptence as some sort of better smelling bullshit.
If I recall correctly, >YOU< were the one that tried to introduce this metaphysical "Truth" shit into the Politics discussions. And you want to lecture me about "intellectual incomptence"?
And I will continue to note that you're "Truth" definition is so meaningless as to grant "Truth" to Clinton (whom you obviously hate).
Seems the flaws are all your's.
