Thanks indeed for your helpful and comprehensive reply. I'll continue my studies via your links; noting for now only that "morality" gave a 404 error message.
So there follows here my response to your return question, "differing as to means" : which ones do you think of ?
1. As an engineer, and as a carefully-defined common-sense local-realist (see my essay), I see myself as a very concrete thinker. To that end I take maths to be the best logic and I work hard to resolve differences of opinion via rigorous rational (reasoned) analysis. This mainly involves mathematical modelling of the systems under discussion; though it often involves little more than plain maths, flow-charts, critical-path analyses, or the like. It certainly involves experimental validation wherever possible.
2. Now it seems to me that you are equally (and maybe more so) capable of such analysis; especially when (in my view) the current FQXi essay topic screams out for such rigour. Nevertheless, many of your arguments have been based on your strong opinions. The result is that we essentially find your own strong opinion contesting other strong opinions (most of the latter being crackpot).
3. Moreover (for me), the problem is worsened because your opinions (based on broadly accepted science, which is commendable) often do not get down to "valid subtleties" that your opponents wrestle with (and thus club together with) every day.
4. Here I offer my own essay by way of example; noting that many famous physicists (and former opponents; eg, David Mermin) are now rejecting nonlocality or (eg, Bernard d'Espagnat) are noting that locality is not ruled out by current science -- as I read them. For I take care to present mathematically sharp definitions of such intuitions as Realism, Separability, Local-causality; at the same time noting that (in general) a 'measurement' perturbs the 'measured' system.
5. By way of illustration, a clear example (there are several) arises with regard to Ed Klingman's essay. As I read the comments there (Ed Klingman's Forum) we essentially find opinion versus opinion (with crackpots reigning supreme).
6. Now Cristi Stoica (a physicist, and one of the leading community-ranked essayists here) set Ed a simple technical challenge AND Ed was unable to meet it.
7. Further, as I recall (for I've not recently studied the comments there), I seem to be one of the few that tackles Ed's conceptualisations and his associated maths. This results in the conviction that Ed's program and model are nonsense -- and my reasons and Ed's answers (or lack thereof) are there in plain view -- while at the same time acknowledging that we were once close colleagues and that my work can be found hiding (though distorted) in his.
8. So, if you would deliver your own mathematically-based critique there, a strong case would be established against Ed's nonsense from three serious but rational points of view. In other words, I have attempted to show that mathematical problems hidden in Ed's presentation render it nonsense. And I think even a cursory mathematical analysis by you would yield a similar conclusion; a total of three strong strikes against the crackpots!
9. The beauty of such analysis from you there, and elsewhere throughout FQXi, is that serious readers can follow your arguments more easily and it forces essayists to correct misleading typos, errors, confusions and blunders (of which Ed's essay is but one shining example).
10. Now, in my experience, in any battle of opinions at FQXi: the crackpots outnumber the sane! But the beauty of our dialogue around mathematical analysis would then arise from the fact that your opinion might already rate my own essay to be crackpot -- but (I am confident) your maths and analysis would not:
For my work focuses on the elimination of nonlocality from physics. And surely, for you, that would be no bad thing?
PS: ME of course READILY ACCEPTING that you have every right to follow your interests elsewhere; but for the benefit of us all, please use your maths/logic skills wherever possible!
With my thanks again, and best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.