Discussions, criticism

[Anton]

This is generally true for discussions of many things such as politics, history etc. (I think I already expressed this point earlier in this forum.)

And neither the mailbox of Dr. Zandbergen nor our forum is unique in this. Same thing in e.g. the Russian VK group.

I think that explanation of the scientific (or gnoceological, if you like) methodology is the best thing that would help people realize if they are on the right or wrong track. What are the criteria of whether a theory is adequate or not, to begin with? If a person does not have a reply to this question, his/her theories will most probably ever be in the "pet-theory" stage, although a sudden enlightenment is of course possible.

As for criticism, it is a necessary element of research. Without criticism, one will never go forward. It is true that this concept is not always understood. The best way to understand it is to realize that criticism is not an attack of the person, but an attack of the opinions, judgements, conclusions etc. of that person. What is "attacked" is not the person, but the inadequacy of our knowledge.