That's it. I'm moving when I get my degree.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Icu

Yes! Not ONLY experience. You seem to be saying that anyone without experience can't form empirical opinions equivalent to yours when clearly in that definition there are other ways to do so; experience is NOT necessarily a requirement for an opinion. Surely someone who has "investigated" and "appealed to facts" is in just as much as position to make an empirical claim as someone with experience alone (I'm not talking about you, just in general).

Notice the definition doesn't say "or," it says "and." "Experience, investigation, and appealing to the facts through the idea." All are needed to form an logically empirical assertion.

For instance, when I was debating auroraglacialis on environmentalism, I immediately ceased and desisted from debate once she revealed that she was credentialed (to some extent) in a scientific area greatly relating to the issue. She had experience, so I stopped. I still disagree with her, and I believe I can answer many things concerning her arguments, but experience trumps conviction. Yes, in all cases. Sometimes it's sad, but I do practice what I preach. I could link you to the discussion if you'd like.

Originally Posted by Icu

I'm not talking about you accepting his viewpoint... You only accepted his viewpoint because you realized he has experience now. Before, when you thought he didn't, you claimed that his opinion was inferior to yours simply because he lacked this experience. I think it's absurd to say that in all cases (and in this one) and my examples in the last post I think are clear demonstrations of this.

And like I did with aurora, I just did with HNM. Stating terms and setting up a proper playing field in discussion is a must and a first, especially concerning issues like this one.