[jibal]

The argument made was nothing like that. The assertion made was

"You can be a genius in one field and a crank in another."

Supporting evidence was offered: "For example: Penrose."

One can dispute the evidence, but there's nothing circular about the argument--your version is a strawman created precisely in an attempt to turn a non-circular argument into a circular one. And even rejecting that evidence there's plenty of other evidence and others here gave examples. Not that examples are even needed, as the assertion is self-evident, and was offered as a counter to a textbook fallacious argument from authority: "he's easily done enough important science work to not be called a crank". There is no basis at all for such a claim. Perhaps Penrose is not a crank in re consciousness, but it certainly doesn't follow from the fact that he's done the highest caliber non-crank science ... that claim is fallacious, disingenuous, and intellectually dishonest.

[jibal]

> If any one cares about this, please hit "parent" a few times to see what everybody said.

They will see that I accurately quoted what was said and my correspondent did not, twisting it into a circular argument when it wasn't.

[oh_my_goodness]

If any one cares about this, please hit "parent" a few times to see what everybody said.