One thing I’d really like to see less of on this board, is argumentation by labeling an idea with some obscure field-dependent term, with no other logical support presented. Admittedly we allow this in mathematically rigorous fields, and there is, perhaps, some discussion to be had about what is rigorously proven as an inviolable natural law in the social sciences. It seems to me that such terms are admissible in the natural sciences only when based on clear parameters of disproof, and evidence, broadly sought, has never been shown to refute it. But in progressive social sciences, and nearly all denominations of politics and religion, these terms are used to deny the admissibility of any evidence against an assertion. This is a fundamental disagreement of the mechanisms of reasoning and communication, and I’m not sure how the two can exist together, but for some reason they always have. For academics, the required canon has simply shifted from Catholicism to social justice. I wonder if there would be some fatal flaw within any gathering of the purely rational such that they must be balanced by the irrational. Or perhaps it is a mutual exchange of the long-term respect and value creation due to risk and rigor, for the short-term financial support of those that would rather pay tuition to pretend.