My
argument requires nothing except a certain humility.
It's so stupid, it defies credibility except to the most gullible of individuals. Surely
you're not one of those!
Wow, the spiders of 'humility' weaving a web of 'credibility' - its a trap!!
Ha ha! But now that we have:
Huw Price and his "reputation trap' guide lines",
Marcello Truzzi – “Regretfully, the term “skeptic” today is being used by many who adopt that label for themselves in a misleading way. To many, it is falsely equated with the term rationalist.”, also
James H. Hyslop – “True scepticism means that we do not know, not that such a thing is not true”, and
Thomas S. Kuhn – “.. there is an “essential tension” within science since it must on the one hand preserve its accumulated knowledge by acting cautiously and conservatively while on the other hand remain an open system ready to take in new and potentially revolutionary data and concepts. This balance is maintained through a number of methodological prescriptions which make it difficult but not impossible for the claimant of an anomaly to obtain acceptance of the claim”.
In my book, TC & MY you are well and truly ‘rumbled’.
Best regards
Frank
PS: Alain, sorry, hope you don't mind me copying from your post, I found it a breath of fresh air. See "Distinguishing non-belief and disbelief... on skepticism..."