This is a perfect response. This happens all of the time between undisciplined studies that have "theories" and disciplined studies that really seek truth despite its outcome that have real theories.
Their approaches are completely opposite.
Hubbard, feminists, cultists have "theories" that are really just ideas that serve their confirmation bias. Their theories are often not falsifiable and they cherry pick data, evidence and whatever to prove the "theory" (aka "hunch") correct. The theory doesn't predict unobserved evidence or outcomes. These restrict our knowledge, aren't factual and are polarizing.
In science theory means observed and duplicatable universal results borne from exhaustive testing. Theories are falsifiable and they are rigorously tried to be proven false. They predict unknown and unobserved evidence and outcome. These expand our knowledge, aren't subjective and are universal.
Mimsey doesn't argue from knowledge. Mimsey doesn't present info from knowledge. Rather it all comes from opinion...ideas...hypothetical hunches or world views. When given data to possibly refute his assumptions he doesn't study to ponder it. Instead, he goes into argument mode to preserve the assumption.
I don't understand that. It's very facile towards understanding.
I try to take a Socratic approach of not assuming a preconceived knowledge and then studying all sides of an issue that I can find in an attempt to safeguard from a favorite assumed idea.
That's exactly what you're proposing, HH.
Thanks, I live with research, innovation, incubation and IP every day. I hire designers, engineers, physicists and a vast array of specialists of multi-faceted disciplines in order to create new technology, devices and tools. It is a constant battle of evaluating the RISKS and REWARDS of undertaking projects that MIGHT lead to a "proof of concept". It's inordinately expensive and thus if mistakes are made by simply "trusting" the "experts" opinions, millions of dollars can be lost. That's not government or grant or monopoly money, that's real money that came out of a person's bank account, lol.
To survive in that world (and end up with an extensive IP portfolio that must actually work in the real world) one learns quickly to listen carefully but not simply accept engineers/scientists learned opinions. They are very often wrong because their thinking is often very narrowly focused on pet theories, hobby horses or shiny gimmicks/effects that they personally think are "really cool", lol
Proof of concept is a working principal that helps navigate the perilously endless ocean of choices.
What Mimsey does is not what professionals do in their fields. He makes noises and motions like he is researching and exchanging REAL INFORMATION about REAL FACTS. He picks up a bit of jargon and sometimes the cadence of the conversation too, and jumps in with---pure unadulterated garbage. It's not even close. Then he gets offended when his "facts" fall apart on the simplest questions.
Usually I don't bother responding to his slogan-based "scientific research"; but here and there I call him out just to see what he will do when asked for "proof of concept". That's when rhetorical flailing, slogan-chanting and other misdirections ensues. I find it interesting that he repeats the well-worn patterns of thought/commentary hundreds of times, without any slightest regard to whether what he is saying produces any RESULTS or whether it's all just conjecture and theories.
Take his epic battle against "racism" because half the country wants to build a border wall. Yet he cannot connect the dots and realize that he locks his own home/car doors. He sees no slightest connection nor the hypocrisy.
Take his epic battle against "rich" people. He doesn't donate the surplus of money he works for (over minimum wage) to people who are not working. Yet, he lectures others that rich people are evil and THEY must do what he is unwilling to do.
The list is endless.
I perhaps have a morbid sense of humor in watching him play out his SJW identity so predictably and feebly that he cannot make a coherent argument. Instead of learning what he is talking about, he cuts-n-pastes hundreds upon hundreds of links to OTHER PEOPLE TALKING/WRITING.
Bizarre, but entertaining nonetheless.