Methodology can be addressed without "you". If one cannot grasp/understand the methodology used, perhaps ask for an explanation rather make an accusation that methodology is flawed?
Ok I'll ask for an explanation since you somehow believe that I can somehow detach what you write from you as a person. Why is it that when I ask you a question that you quote one sentence of that question and leave AAAAAAAAAAAAL this out? How am I to not take that as you simply being evasive?
Or motivated thinking? How do you get to god. Because I promise you people who have had similar experiences exists that worship other God's than you.
So now to your answer to the one thing you replied to. It's actually 3 different arguments. And the third one tries to sneak in an assumption.
I am not a psychologist. I do not know any delusional people. Therefore I am not even qualified to address that question.
This argument is focused on the idea that you need to be a psychologist to be able to answer the question as to how a person distinguishes reality from delusion. Something that simply isn't true. Being able to recognize delusion within oneself reliably is notoriously difficult because it involves a person to have enough meta-awareness to police their own thoughts in real-time. That doesn't require a psychologist but a discipline of mind that no person can ever be truly certain of.
I can distinguish reality from dreams, from imagination, from stray thoughts, wishful thinking, etc.
This argument rest on the "I just can" argument. It has no explanatory values whatsoever. It's simply an assertion.
Ask yourself how you can.
This argument I like the best. It sneaks in the assumption that recognizing delusion, stray thoughts and wishful thinking is not just easy, but that you and me essentially decide that in the same way. Something that's highly doubtful.
I'm actually very glad you posed that question, because it's illustrative of the entire issue.
How I distinguish truth from delusions or wishful thinking is by first recognizing that as a human I'm prone to imagine things that are not based on reality if stuff like ego or identity are concerned. Everybody has biases. So the next step is to distinguish the things I know from the things I believe. For that I use the Socratic method. And I use that method for everything. It means I've tried to train my mind to avoid fallacies. The step after that is to remain skeptical. The closer what I believe matches reality the more skeptical I get. So, I try ways to falsify what I believe. Like for instance talking on a forum and see if someone has an argument that withstands scrutiny. And finally, I try to keep it in my mind that despite all these steps it's folly to believe what I conclude is definitionally right.
So next question. Does how I separate truth from fiction come close to how you do?
I was enjoying the discussion between us until the discussion of that changed to a discussion of the made-up Meriweather
I see you have no problem talking about the poster as long as you aren't the poster who's being talked about. Not that I mind. But here's the thing. You laid that accusation at my feet before. After which I directly quoted your words to support my assumptions.
You're happy to try again and explain what about you I "imagined", just beware that the only thing that will happen is that I will simply use your own words to support what I said.
