I think the intention is to explore these concepts, not to discredit or attack anyone. Philosophy at it's very best is a discussion, an exchange of ideas.
You, perhaps, aren't familiar with the history of it:
FBA, neo and some others, have been constantly making threads about WLC, supposed "lying" on his part, supposed "deception" on his part, supposed "charlatanry" and the such.
At some point it becomes tiresome. What is so surprising that others object to WLC, seriously? So, if you thought certain argument as GOOD should we now bring all the scholarly and academic work that has ever been done against that argument and ask you to refute it?
When FBA brings some famous atheistic argument, we do not open special threads, about the guy making the arugment, and all the academics who object to it. And I wonder why people proceed like this with WLC? What has WLC done? He believes the things he does, like any other philosopher. He argues for what he believes, and thinks it's truthful - like any other philosopher, like any other person.
This is getting very, very tiresome and annoying. Now, FBA asks us to argue against academics, and all the criticisms, remarks, objections they've made to WLC's work, which are included in neo's signature. Why? When you believe Dennett, do you go through all the objections, from all the academics, that Dennett has faced, argue against it? And if you haven't, should we constantly remind you and make threads about how many academics there are, who have argued aagainst Dennett's positions?
What do you aim to achieve with this?
