First: there is nothing morally wrong in posting an opinion. My problem is that (a) it occurs within the context of generating and criticising knowledge; (b) its cognitive value is either zero or negative; (c) it is presented as though thoughtless opinions (almost all opinions are thoughtless) form a counterpoint to knowledge or are themselves candidates for knowledge (the latter are the hypotheses); (d) one acts as though the fact that opinions could have some moral value (because a human being expresses them) is sufficient to make them cognitively worthy; (e) cognitive nonsense is provided with a foundation in Christian (and Semitic) religious value (like ‘IMHO’, ‘humility’ for example), which is itself placed beyond discussion as though its importance is universally recognized; (Neither the Ancient Pagans nor the Asian traditions consider ‘humility’ a moral virtue. It is immoral to these traditions because it is seen as dissimulation and deception.); and so on. There is place on this forum for dissent, disagreement and criticism, but their foundation is not moral but cognitive. I do not tolerate opinions on this board, but I am willing to think about any hypothesis that appears reasonable. I will respond to misunderstandings, queries and criticisms. However, those who find my reactions (to their ‘humble opinions’) offensive should leave this group.
Second: you say that you know where this forum has ‘gone beyond’ and where it has not. You are simply shooting your mouth off and, once again, expressing an ‘opinion’. I do not, even for a second, believe this to be true. If it was, your knowledge and hypotheses (about both) should far outstrip anything anyone in this group has written. Unfortunately, the republic of letters has never heard of you or of this huge result. For instance, I would like to know what you think is the ‘limit’ of any of my hypothesis. By waving your hand vaguely in the direction of themes that I ( or anyone else in the world) have nothing to say about is not to show limits of any kind. Please realize something very important: only one thing can set the limits of knowledge. Do you know what it is? Ignorance. Because this is true, I have a request to make: please tell me how your ignorance gives you an insight into where I have gone beyond and where I have not.
Third. Here is how you express opinions: “Theoretical framework works with well-defined words, not with vague ones that nevertheless are important.” Question: which idiot told you this? No human being who has done science or has working knowledge of philosophy would dare say this today. As an example: go read ‘The Origin of the Species’ of Darwin. Note the title of this book, note too that it talks about the origin of ‘the species’. Note further that Darwin thought that, perhaps, the species were the basic units of selection. Yet, Darwin did not define the word ‘species’ and, even today, there is an active discussion about what species are and how to define that term. Yet, this fact does not prevent you expressing your opinion with a certainty that only ignorance can provide.