Back to my original point, these definitions won't work for the reasons I cite. So if the poster's intention is to create a set of terms that we can all agree on for a decent dialogue, he needs to rethink it. I don't usually chime in on these threads because they never go anywhere productive, I'm just trying to be helpful.
Of course, I'm not really sure if that's what he wants, or if he just wants to have a big circle jerk with the evo crowd.
But look, you can certainly shoot down anything I say, because it happened to someone else. That's the nature of faith. Or 'knowledge'.
So what are you going to say when it happens to you?
"Of course, I'm not really sure if that's what he wants, or if he just wants to have a big circle jerk with the evo crowd."
Lovely characterization. Is that kind of language inspired by your faith, too?
"But look, you can certainly shoot down anything I say, because it happened to someone else. That's the nature of faith. Or 'knowledge'."
No, it's the lack of your applying empiricism to your correlation.
"So what are you going to say when it happens to you?"
When WHAT happens to me? Are you saying that I must be addicted to something?