Why the Scientific FS is the Most Credible & Objective

[FlashDangerpants]

This quote from another thread where you sadly missed the point entirely (due to your lack of reading skills) demonstrates the problem with your false modesty rather blatantly...

If one were to read Kant thoroughly and understood [not necessary agree] Kant's take on Morality & Ethics, that inserted [Ethics] resonates with the whole of Kant's dealing of Morality and Ethics.

You fool yourself very easily that dead philosophers agree with you. Yet you have zero traction with any living ones.

Your thinking is bankrupt.
The greatest philosophers of all time happened to dead thousands and hundreds of years ago.
https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/greatest- ... -all-time/
It is the same with of the greatest in many other established fields of knowledge.

As with philosophers who are alive at present, there are none that are very great as compared to the famous philosophers who are dead.
Your Simon Blackburn?

Even if there are any 'great' living philosophers [I can think of any that warrant the term 'great' -who? Noam Chomsky?], they are standing on the "shoulders of giants" of the dead ones.

You just automatically assume your place is among the greats. You don't even really seem to think about it.

[FlashDangerpants]

What would it take to get VA to consider the possibility that he isn't one of the great philosophers?

Much of his reasoning follows the implicit logic that VA is the best, therefore all disagreement is merely inferiority of understanding. If he were to see more need for his arguments to be good, would he put effort into making good arguments? Is it too late for that now?