It is apparent that I cannot convince you the earth is round using conventional methods. This means that my only choice is to stoop down to your level, and use purely intuitive appeals over logical ones. This is likely my [b]last[/b] actual argument with you, what do you say? Do you accept my challenge? Intuition is not by any means, a bad thing. Intuition is a starting point for an idea. It's the foundation of science. All science is built off of intuition to a degree. To disregard intuition as an argumentative tactic is to disregard both Science and logic. That being said, intuition isn't perfect. Nothing can be proven through solely intuition. Intuition being used as an argumentative tactic relies on disregarding evidence over logic. So when you use intuition, to justify claims, you end up using anecdotal evidence. By only using intuition, your not opening your mind. You're limiting all inputs to personal experience. Your argument isn't about the world itself, it's about your perception of the world. You claim to be "Godzilla to the Tokyo of ignorance", yet you disregard all claims made that use evidence you have no experience with. This means you only care about anything that fits within your egocentric and narcissistic bubble, thus why your mind is small and cynical. By disregarding evidence, of any form, you are truly the one who is closed minded. You've compared yourself to Socrates, yet you are unaware of your own ignorance, and you only use intuition rather than evidence. With all that, it is clear that you are the closed minded one. If you opened your mind, you would see why your claims are false. This is why your tactics fail, because intuition is not universal, and you are so unbelievably cynical towards the scientific community. You have a small mind to reject all that you haven't experienced. So... prove me wrong. I've already explained why arguing with you is pointless, now, I want you to use your intuition to disprove my defense of science. So, if science is some sort of religion with fairytales about scientific achievement, how do you explain the advances made in our society? If physics is nothing more than a cult of science, how do you explain the automobile or aircraft? How could they be possible without the principals behind them? Or what about computers, since science doesn't exist, would that make the computers magical? How about Evolution. If evolution doesn't exist, why does a new flu vaccine get made each year? If gravity doesn't exist, how can other celestial bodies have orbits? To summarize, if you value intuition over all else, then you must consider the whole of my defense of science. A house cannot stand without a foundation, you cannot get the fruits of scientific labor, without the foundation which that labor is based on.[spoiler]Let's make sure he sees this, and everyone is welcome to contribute to this discussion. Just try to focus on evidence and logic over insults. Insults only come after we win.[/spoiler][spoiler]I'm rambling like this because I am currently high. Yep. That's how confident I am.[/spoiler]