Originally Posted by Aishaddai
A good point is a good point. Does not matter who or what the source is. Titles are irrelevant. They don't make things more or less true. Just like numbers of people or popularity don't make things more true. Seems to me that you all are more concerned about the "source" rather than what actually works. Usually this is solved by simply doing (conducting experiments in real time with all concerned bodies present) rather than arguing but that's not an option. Truth is you can argue till your ego's go blue in the face, but projecting results in a vaccum without accounting all variables is pointless. The most you can do is provide a point and hope Larian rolls for insight.


You realize a 'good point' is a point that's been qualified right? Which means it's inherently tied to a context which includes the source. While it doesn't necessarily subtract away from the truthiness of a thing, it does mean it may fit less into your context to which you're trying to apply the 'good point' to.

And the truth is that we do have in place formal rules of logic and other systems that make arguing/debating/discussing these things meaningful/fruitful and depending on the subject matter doesn't necessarily require you to run an experiment (usually because it's already been validated by the processes outlined previously.