Thanks for creating a forum with real debate!

[Angrboda]

Allow me to point out something.


First, you claim there is no universal standard as to what constitutes proper epistemic procedure. As a matter of fact, you appear to claim that this fact is self-evident. Then you attempt to construct an argument, which must by its nature appeal to shared epistemological assumptions, if not a universally shared epistemology, in order to be fruitful. This is fine if inconsistency is okie-dokie according to your epistemological assumptions, but if that's the case then our epistemological assumptions aren't shared and our meanings are incommensurate.

Without unfolding all the ramifications of this, it appears to be a case of you wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.




(Oh, and I'll stick this in here, since it's been weighing on my mind. My assessment of you is that you're essentially channeling other authors' arguments. This in itself might not be fatal, but you appear to have poor taste in authors, an inability to assess the credibility of the authors whom you choose to channel, an inability to profitably assess the merits of the arguments you read, and a general inability to faithfully represent those arguments without making them far less credible than they likely were in the original. You don't even appear fully capable of understanding them, period. As such, I have almost zero interest in substantively replying to your arguments because they aren't your arguments, and I would be replying to a ghost who isn't here.)