A sceptic is only called that, by persons who have no factual backing about the subject they preach. Those people use empirical opinions as facts. Ok nothing wrong with that if the subject is ethereal, rather than of a solid substance. If something is solid, then it can be factualised, rather than vocalised.
I think some poster's do not know the difference between the two, or prefer to ignore that logic, for convenience or those that are simply ignorant of this.
Now, are you calling someone who is "objectivist":
- one who practices objectivism, which is the formulation of hypothesis into fact which is able to be demonstrated repeatedly such that people can read and understand the science behind, in this case a product?
- one who objects to hypothesis on the grounds that it cannot be proved?
- one who belongs to a group who practice objectivity, i.e. one who remains apart emotionally from the "science" (for instance), such that the "science" remains emotionless - or fact - which is pretty dry..
One wonders who is actually practising "Fundamental Fervour"? It would appear your dissertation Mr C needs a bit more thought, rather than fanning out a spray of accusation.
