[mannykannot]

I would be interested to see how you think this short video supports the claim you are making here, as it does not mention evolution, common sense or faith, and is ostensibly about how little knowledge one gains just by learning the name of a thing.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

You don't understand how pointing out the names of things isn't the important property of a thing would be relevant in a discussion with someone who is arguing it should be called X instead of Y?

That's on you, brother.

[mannykannot]

No, the claims made in the video you linked to do not show that, as you put it, "in this case, 'common sense' and 'blind faith' mean the same thing." Nor does your reply to mcphage.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

correct, the video is pointing out the name you call something isn't important.

I choose to call it blind faith and the other poster prefers to call it common sense. If a 3rd person wanted to call it guacamole I'd be onboard.

The other poster insists on arguing about the name rather than discussing the interesting part, which is underlying idea. They want to do this based upon the whole "science vs religion" thing that was boring even back in the 90's when it was raging.

I have no interest in it and so I've stepped out of that conversation. Let someone else take up a stupid, useless, argument.

[mannykannot]

> The video is pointing out the name you call something isn't important.

Firstly, this is a misreading of the video. The absurdity of this position can be seen from extending your example through replacing every noun in your comments by "guacamole".

Secondly, "blind" is an adjective, and one that you use at every opportunity (except where you are looking up definitions - by the way, isn't looking up definitions an odd preoccupation for someone who doesn't see anything of importance in what you call something?) It is well-known that you cannot outright prove anything about the natural world by induction, but to lump everything that is not proven into the category of specifically blind faith ignores the epistemic value of evidence and just leads to what you call a stupid, useless, argument.

[jacquesm]

> The absurdity of this position can be seen from extending your example through replacing every noun in your comments by "guacamole".

Ouch. Funny though.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

It's a complete misunderstanding of what's being said.