> people who aren't philosophers said some bullshit Wow, I didn't expect to be vindicated quite so definitively when I predicted: "The most likely outcome of t

> people who aren't philosophers said some bullshit Wow, I didn't expect to be vindicated quite so definitively when I predicted: "The most likely outcome of that exercise would be for you to invoke the no-true-scotsman fallacy." > That's no a No True Scotsman fallacy. It absolutely is: > the definition of philosophy, a deep analysis of certain specific topics. I see nothing in that definition about writing in a particular time period or having a university degree, which are the two features you cited that allegedly disqualify Ayn Rand. I also see an awful lot of wiggle-room in the "specific topics" and how one measures whether one's analysis is sufficiently "deep". You exclude economics and computer science from your list of "certain topics" but you don't say what topics are allowed or on what basis this assessment of admissibility is to be made. Your argument is a paragon of muddled thinking, and does more to support my position than refute it.