Hoops,
I am not sure why you want to keep playing this game. The expereince is the evidence. This may be a concept to hard for you to understand. We evaluate the expereinces/evidence and make assumptions/interpretations of what they mean. This is true for all five of the senses and even internal senses like feelings. From those interpretations we can test to see if they work. An example is sight. Does it allow us to navigate successfully to work and back without running into things. The nearly blind person recognizes that their sight is not as reliable with the experience of running into things.
I'll take ANY evidence at all, at this point. Not proof, just something that is not dependent on your experience.
Don't read much do you. I have never said there is. Only that our expereinces are the evidence, and how well the interpretations work out tells us if something works well or not, and is reasonable to conclude is an approximation of reality. The problem I see is that you do this as well, but just want to argue against what you already are doing.
because something works it's real? If it works less well, it's less real?
I never said that. I said it is reasonable to conclude it is a better approximation of what is real, not that it is in any absolute way. If something works less well, then it is less likely to be accurate approximation of reality. It could still be correct, but we have less confidence that it is, or should have based on results. Not that everyone does.
So logic and reason by consensus.
Sure. If your conclusions are different then most, then it is reasonable to reevaluate and not trust that you are right as much.
Track record for what? Talk about circular reasoning. You're basically saying that your experience can be trusted and I know this because of my experience. You fail.
No there is expereince/evidence, from which we come up with assumptions/interpretations. If the A/I don't work well, then we go back and reevaluate them and adjust them and see of we get better results if possible.
You suspect I can't not provide evidence for a position I have not taken? How profound.
I think you are lying. You wouldn't be here if you didn't have a position, and I have noticed you avoid saying what it is so that one cannot really critique what one has not proposed. Problem is you give enough away for others to see what you are trying to do. You also do not seem to get what I am arguing for, and what I am not arguing against. It's hard to discuss it when you don't spend much time trying to understand and then you will in the end do this little false gem
Ah, the old "My thinking is just so superior to yours" defense. How brilliant.
Now why don't you actually make your point of what you are trying to do here in order to have a real discussion. Until then I see no reason to continue playing this game.