Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TMax01 t1_irjy7hm wrote

Reply to comment by iiioiia in “Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of knowledge.” How Karl Popper’s philosophy of science can overcome clinical corruption. by IAI_Admin

That your claim is implicit (but clearly indicated by your question and your position, as well as your lack of any other reasoning related to the issue, and confirmed by your subsequent argumentation) does not provide the effortless deniability that this was your premise which you apparently wish it did. It continues to vex you that I am capable of ascertaining your thinking based on your statements (including your queries and requests), but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking? You seem to be highly focused on either claiming or suggesting that I could not be accurately interpreting your words, but the fact that you don't ever bother to provide any more accurate interpretation (instead merely insisting that my interpretation is inaccurate without justifying your insistence beyond unsubstantiated denials bordering on indignation) actually ratifies my perceptions about your meaning and your beliefs, rather than contradicting them.

1

iiioiia t1_irk057i wrote

>That your claim is implicit..

You claimed to be interpreting it literally.

Gotcha!! 😁

I must say: for some reason I particularly enjoying arguing with you, although I'm not sure why.

>but what else could be the purpose of your statements (etc) other than to present your thinking?

This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.

1

TMax01 t1_irk3fry wrote

>You claimed to be interpreting it literally.

I am. Your implicit contention is made obvious by a literal interpretation of your language. It seems that you expect my interpretation to be naive, rather than merely literal; in presuming you were not speaking figuratively, I read your text literally.

>Gotcha!! 😁

You have revealed the fact, as I had already surmised, that you are interested in semantic games (and efforts at one-upsmanship amounting to desperate childishness) rather than intelligent discussion. Oops.

>This is actually an excellent question. For the answer, you can simply read my mind.

As always, I don't need to do so. All I need do is read your words, and the reason you are unable to answer the question is made obvious. I will refer you to my prior point, as regards your involuntary confession about the premise of your argumentation.

0