I was just noticing that you don’t have much respect for disciplinary boundaries. My article was about ethics (honesty vs deceit), social media, and the religious search for the sacred. But your comment was, “Is truth the order of the absolute, or the transcendence of the infinite?”
One could be forgiven for thinking that that commenter hadn’t actually read the article, right? I mean, your initial comment was quite abstract and reductive. We’ve talked about these issues several times, so I have some notion of what you were driving at. But I’m finding I have to read the tea leaves sometimes to discern some constructive criticism from your comments.
I appreciate everyone who takes the time to read and comment on my articles. That’s I why I try to respond to all the comments. But my time spent interpreting comments is time I could be spending writing my articles. Do you see what I mean? I’d just encourage you to be more direct in your comments.
You happen to have a thoroughgoing alternative, perhaps idiosyncratic philosophical and scientific way of looking at things. The real question, I think, isn’t so much whether we choose to describe or explain things differently, but whether those differences are significant, or whether our accounts make opposing predictions. Is your philosophy falsifiable? Does it explain everything equally well? Do our philosophies have disadvantages as well as advantages?