@georgehifi
Well, that's why you're lifting it completely out of context to redefine the meaning of my words. You deliberately lop off the qualifying statement "in essence" so you can reframe the statement to your liking. It's dishonest.
@nonoise
No doubt this is no court. That model of debate doesn't originate in court. It's a basic convention of civilized conversation. Am I to assume there's nothing civilized about this conversation?
The argument the "believers" make, and the only one as far as I can tell, is they hear something and the only way I can know myself is to try it myself. Ironically, this is a great way to believe in God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just try to believe and magically you will. I don't think just wanting to believe in thing is a good reason to believe in things. For instance, I believe in God because they're is a powerfully compelling body of evidence to warrant considering the belief. But in this fuse thing, there's no body of evidence at all to justify the consideration. And just like devoted believers in God, nobody will persuade "fuse believers" to the contrary because they've had what they believe to be an authentic experience regardless of the actual phenomenology at work.
Because I've been formally trained to do so, I know what tools work for convincing people to believe in things that they cannot see or hear. I know what it looks like when people and marketing departments use those tools. I'm pretty sure that's what I'm seeing here.
Well, that's why you're lifting it completely out of context to redefine the meaning of my words. You deliberately lop off the qualifying statement "in essence" so you can reframe the statement to your liking. It's dishonest.
@nonoise
No doubt this is no court. That model of debate doesn't originate in court. It's a basic convention of civilized conversation. Am I to assume there's nothing civilized about this conversation?
The argument the "believers" make, and the only one as far as I can tell, is they hear something and the only way I can know myself is to try it myself. Ironically, this is a great way to believe in God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Just try to believe and magically you will. I don't think just wanting to believe in thing is a good reason to believe in things. For instance, I believe in God because they're is a powerfully compelling body of evidence to warrant considering the belief. But in this fuse thing, there's no body of evidence at all to justify the consideration. And just like devoted believers in God, nobody will persuade "fuse believers" to the contrary because they've had what they believe to be an authentic experience regardless of the actual phenomenology at work.
Because I've been formally trained to do so, I know what tools work for convincing people to believe in things that they cannot see or hear. I know what it looks like when people and marketing departments use those tools. I'm pretty sure that's what I'm seeing here.
