[lisper]

You really think I'm going to let you off the hook that easily? Before I answer any more of your questions you are either going to have to come up with some evidence to support your claim that I "repeatedly claim that [my] claims are necessarily factual" or explicitly concede that you were wrong. You can't have it both ways. There is nothing wrong with holding me up to a high rhetorical standard, but there is a lot wrong with doing it while not holding yourself up to the same standard.

[mistermann]

I am more than happy to stand with this as your reply to what I wrote above.

And I will make a prediction: you are unable to physically answer that question, in this forum, in a non-evasive manner (and field reasonable follow up questions).

And, you are welcome to implicitly (this word is important) or explicitly ~"declare victory" (the quotation marks around this phrase are important) in any way you like, I enjoy it.

[lisper]

OK, but remember, you asked for this. Again.

Just to be clear, here is what you asked:

> can you explain why you speak so confidently, and repeatedly claim that your claims are necessarily factual?

That is not one question, it's two questions, with different answers.

The reason I speak confidently is that I am confident. Why am I confident? Because I apply the scientific method to everything I do (or at least I try), I've been doing it for a very, very long time, and it produces consistently good results for me. One thing that entails is putting a lot of effort into seeking out people who disagree with me to see if they can find problems with my arguments, and when they do, I fix them. Over time the problems get harder and harder to find because there are fewer and fewer of them, and so it happens less and less frequently. But it happens. Here's an example:

https://blog.rongarret.info/2023/04/bitcoins-value-propositi...

The last time I can recall encountering something that presented a serious challenge to my core beliefs was nearly five years ago:

https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wo...

---

The answer to the second question is that it assumes a false premise. I'm pretty sure that I have never claimed that anything I say is necessarily factual, though it's possible I may have done so at some point in a fit of pique. If I did, it certainly wasn't intentional.

In fact, if you had bothered to do your homework, you would know that I've explicitly said on the record that nothing is ever "necessarily factual".

https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient...

"science never proves anything; instead it produces explanations of observations"

So your second question is simply a straw man.

---

As long as I'm taking the time to respond to you, there was something you said earlier that I wanted to reply to at the time but decided not to. I've changed my mind (see, it happens):

> I am trying to figure out if you have self-awareness ... it feels like you must be trolling me

Funny, I was thinking the exact same thing.

[mistermann]

Do present/perceive these very interesting and impressive stories as being an accurate reflection of the relevant states of affairs, or more so a description of your prediction/belief of how they are?