A dot is a mark you make on paper. The more suitable informal term would have been "point." Hilles agreed in his more recent comment on my article on our exchange that he was in over his head.

I might answer yes or no if I'm under cross examination in a court of law, but not if I'm having philosophical exchanges with fellow readers and writers.

I could answer yes to Hilles' question about natural selection, but only by turning my brain off. As soon as I start to think about the question, I realize there's a difference between a technical explanation which could be supplied only by experts, and a layperson's explanation which might not be fully satisfying. So both of his questions were traps or they were based on confusions. The philosophical task is to steelman arguments, not to accept imperfections.

I have my criticisms of scientific arrogance, but not so much of science as the paradigm of rational explanation. I'm satisfied with scientific explanations in a pragmatic sense in that I see them as being instrumental to the transhuman enterprise, by enabling us to exploit natural processes. That is, I'm satisfied that science is immensely useful. Existentially, though, I'm concerned that that entire endeavour is counterproductive and foolhardy. Aesthetically, I'm inspired by the tragic heroism of the Faustian, secular humanistic endeavour. I wear multiple hats.

You keep saying you wish others would see things your way, but everyone thinks the same thing. We all wish others would agree with us, to some extent. My semi-postmodern view, though, is that we're all just telling stories at the philosophical or religious level. So that's my basis for humility.