> your premise is false and your conclusion depends on your premise. Ok, so your knowledge of these terms indicates that at least you've taken an introductory

> your premise is false and your conclusion depends on your premise. Ok, so your knowledge of these terms indicates that at least you've taken an introductory course on philosophy at some point, so that's good. However the key point in my argument is "seems", because it would be silly to think that I know anything about what you're knowledgeable about. > ...an idea that has received much support among philosophers, which indicts the entire field's critical thinking ability. And there's where your argument falls apart. How does your conclusion follow from your premise? Greek mythology is still very much a full field of its own, but I doubt it has any active believers remaining in this day and age; that doesn't make it any less of a belief system. Similarly, I could argue that all modern music listeners are teen girls because Justin Bieber's fan base is mostly teen girls. It just doesn't follow, regardless of how you feel about one aspect of a field. > Scientists reject astrology out of hand, which supports science's respect for critical thinking. Yep, but they didn't always used to. Astronomy originated from Astrology, and provided it with many valid theories that Astronomy then took as its own. Astrology now is mostly classified by its silly belief system, but that's the nature of intellectual evolution. Popper's essay "On the Sources of Knowledge" that I mentioned deals explicitly with Astrology/Astronomy, and Classical Mechanics/Relativity as its prime examples. It's a good short read, you should seek it out. Either way, I'm not sure why you keep going off on tangents with regards to spelling or literature and such, but an important part of constructing good arguments is the avoidance of logical fallacies. A good reference of them can be found here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ I hope from my tone that you can tell that I am merely trying to help build your understanding of the field, because your claim of lack-or-rigor in philosophy is easily disproved by even a quick glance at history. Mathematical proofs are some of the most rigorous formal 'theories' we have, and they originated with philosophy. Similarly, 'falsifiability' as a concept was invented in philosophy. It is the dismissal of this that is discerning. Otherwise, it seems we generally agree, and that you're misplacing your arguments against the wrong foe. A friendly understanding of this would be nice, but I don't gather from your tone that that is what you are after...