Few of these arguments are my own invention. My role has been small, and now it is as a re layer of the information. However, it was through my arguments with these people that these arguments came to be and more scrutiny was poured on these imdividuals. In fact, the 3 sources for these arguments (who want no credit, saying they trust I will use this info well) are avid followers of mine, closely following what I do and telling me what they know out of a sense of comraderie. Though these arguments were their focus, they'd also respond to other activity of mine, which indicates relatively close interest. So their exposure was through me. And while I thought I was clumsy, all said I held my own well my they did comment, citing my scrappinness and cleverness. Though it was largely on my own intuition I'd say.
I say this not to brag, but to explain how much I appreciate and notice these followers

While I nursed doubts that I was simply too biased and not grasping what they were saying, in the end those doubts just held me back from dismissing them, as many had for good reason. But that is a good problem to have, it never stopped me from engaging. And as the last item in what I suppose is my defense, they were talented obscurantists with esoteric objections. They were good at their denialismm it was strategic even. Always wanting to criticise as well, but being cagey with their own position


Really they were not dissimilar to Kraut, demanding things fit their methodology and arguing a phenomenon can't be understood or properly studied without a mechanistic explanation. Despite many exa,pled being given, from general athletic ability to examples from animals to miscellaneous science. As one would expect from these examples, as they rely on this to work as examples, they would cite that we do know sometching about the mechanisms. But we didnt always, didnt need it to study them and make predictions, and in fact did just that in the past