I get the impression that Krusty does have experience that is valuable to our discussion, and for that reason I will miss him, assuming that his promise is sincere. The problem is that I don't think he's leaving because of the reasons he states. Knowing that Krusty could not addresss these issues given his departure point in argument is why I entered the post the way I did, and why, you will note, he chose not to respond to me directly.
The symptomatic aspect of krusty's posts, if you look at them carefully, is that he was never able to respond to my inquiries, soon claiming that opinions contrary to his own are per se regressions, and, importantly, religious regressions with Judeo-Christian overtones ("infidels", "Bible", "walk on water").
I have said this before, but I would ask, politely, if you could all listen just this once. Many people who make scientific arguments whose assumptive premises are questioned make very similar responses - ones that don't answer the question and whose patterns can be predicted. How? Because, interestingly, krusty's progression of argument mirrors the discipline of science's own response to such questions over the past two hundred years. When questioned, science has responded, in an historical cascade, that 1) any knowledge not scientific knowlwedge does not exist, then 2) even if knowledge exists outside science, that knowledge is inherently unknowable, then 3) even if knowable, if you claim you know, then you are irrational because...Well, there is no "because", because at this point science merely says that they are going to quit discussing it, go back to their rulers and, as they go out the door, mutter that you are merely regressing to some mytho-magical delusion. Why always the medieval religious references? Because science arose out of the previous ruling paradigm of Judeo-Christian doctrine, and sees that doctrine as its enemy, and so it, and its acolytes, naturally posit any claims of irrationality in Judeo-Christian terms.
And this, symptomatically, is exactly what Krusty did. First he posited a "technical" (read: scientific) theory where subjective criteria were reduced, the operation of that reduction being the ascendancy of his scientific arguments, even though, by the rules of empiric methodology, the subjective is primary to the technique, ie. "technicalities" are the primary knowledge (#1 above). He then stated that some people may have subjective knowledge outside his technicalities, but that they are relegated as a matter of course to his own, without offerring why (# 2 above). Then, when his assumptions were questioned using the same scientific methodology he applied to others (an argument mirroring the deconstruction of scientific exclusivity over the past fifty years), his response was that he was quitting and stormed out uttering his mytho-magical accusations.
This is denial, and the emotion behind it ("senioritas" as a way of saying that other posters are lacking in verility) is not symptomatic of a frustration that ideas were not listened to, but that the primary exclusivity of scientific assumptions was questioned. A worldview was questioned, one that tells you that if you just reduce things into "technicalities" enough, then you will find the truth and be safe. This is a safe matrix of ideas to exist within - just like medieval Judeo-Christian doctrine was a comfortable delusion to stay within - and when it is questioned, the exclusivity of the worldview is questioned. Just like the medieval church, the bearers of the present exclusivity to Truth react combatively when questioned. This is not a coincidence, and the accusations of regression in religious terms then only becomes paradoxical, if not ironic.
Science and its "technicalities" are tools of the mind. Does this mean that MIT cable networks are immune from technical questioning? No, the tool should be used, but not to beat other people over the head with because you choose to believe that science is your primary God. That is ideology fueled by the ego, not science. The medieval church had little to do with Jesus; scientism has little to do with science. The recoil of either had/has little to do with the truth of ideas and more to do with the ego's need to adopt an ideology that can make one feel safe and then taken out into the world to be used against others.
