People who are incapable of winning arguments without asking tygxc to cite academic papers or without calling others "narcissistic" always make their discussions personal, when they're incapable of winning them by any other means. That's because they are not interested in fair and honest discussions but in winning and in being seen by others to be winning. They always make personal attacks on those who can out-manoeuvre them, to try to discredit them. tygxc's arguments have all been fine except for the fly in the ointment .... the belief that chess can be solved in five years. But really that's immaterial, because it doesn't affect our understanding of the more important ideas.
There's no practical problem in believing that chess may be a win and my understanding is that all it reflects is a lack of accurate judgement in a completely unimportant matter.
The more insidious thing is that this is actually a political matter because it consists of some people telling others what they may think and what they may know, because they falsely pretend to understand what knowledge is and how people attain it.
So they think they have moral authority over people's beliefs, although they pretend that what they are exercising is intellectual authority. It's an extension of the idea of agnosticism, where some people wrongly interpret it as being *incorrect* to believe that something, whatever it is, doesn't exist or does exist. They're not only telling others what they are allowed to think; they're also wrong and they're wrong because they're ignorant about how humans know things and believe things.
I tried three times to get them talking on that subject and to recognise that I wrote a short essay on the subject. In view of their refusal to address it, they have lost this argument and they have no moral authority remaining. They never had any intellectual authority, which was always a mirage.
Maybe "they" (and everybody else it seems) are not responding to your essay because it is philosophical fluff without real content in a scientific discussion.
I'll leave the rest of your delusions alone.
If you didn't constantly use the word "delusions" you could get away with such ignorance. I was only aiming that little bit of writing at haiaku, initially, because his argument with tygxc was going on and on and ty didn't know how to defend against it. No-one needed to respond except haiaku because he was the one who was being such a know-it-all and yet calling me a positivist and other mistakes meant that he wasn't properly engaging with the discussion.
You don't engage either. You're repetitive and even if you have the capability, you're too lazy to try to think well. If you can't get your mind round ideas about how we can define "knowing" things, then you cannot speak here with any authority.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DO NOT USE GIANT FONTS. YOUR OPINION SHOULD MAKE ITS OWN STATEMENT.