Don't give me your opinion, give me an argument. Address the argument specifically.

Sam26, I have gave my opposition. You cannot say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence when given as a testimony.

What are discussions, or debates but differentiating opinions. Is not your topic an opinion?

What are discussions, or debates but differentiating opinions. Is not your topic an opinion? — jufa

No, it's not an opinion, it's a well-formed inductive argument, so the conclusion follows from the strength of the premises. I'm telling you what I know based on the evidence. I'm not simply giving an opinion based on what I happen to think is true.

What you have to do, if you disagree, is show where the argument fails. You said the testimonial evidence is hearsay, but that doesn't address my argument which addresses this very issue. I take great pains to make the point that it isn't hearsay, and why it is not hearsay or secondhand testimony. All you did is make a pronouncement that it is hearsay without showing how my argument relies on hearsay. Not all testimonial evidence is hearsay.

I have laid out the premises of my argument very clearly, so attack the specific premises.

"A rose by any other name is still a rose."

A deductive or Inductive argument, whether claimed to be what one knows or expressing what they have experience, has no strength when the premise of their knowing is not exposed. And irrespective of what you state to be your inductive argument it is reasoning, and reasoning flat line is conceptual. And not only that, no man has ever found anything which would allow him to open a door into his invisible foundation, which cannot be verified by his sense mind. Why? Because men climb the backs, and ride the thought wave of other men, and advance those thoughts according to their human indoctrination, teachings, and beliefs, and intellect. What you state you know does not belong to you.

Now you keep saying I have not presented a a specific premise of argument, but when I tell you

You cannot say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence when given as a testimony.

and you do not refute it, then your lack of response says you have ran into a dead end, and you have no other recourse by to say I have not presented myself specific in context. Oh well!

You cannot say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence when given as a testimony.

I'm baffled by this statement. Where did I say testimonial evidence is not testimonial evidence? Unless you think that all testimonial evidence is hearsay by definition, but that's just not the case. Again you're not reading or understanding the argument.

I'm currently writing a book on this subject. I've started the first chapter, and I have an editor lined up. My book is going to be a bit different from many of the books on NDEs, because I am concentrating on what I believe is a mountain of testimonial evidence in support of the claim that consciousness survives bodily death.

I will be posting only the first chapter in this thread, starting with the preface. The members of The Philosophy Forum will get the first look at the book. What I start posting in here will be the unedited pages. Once I have the edited pages, I will repost the chapter. I have been wanting to do this book for years, but keep putting it off, and I am not getting any younger, so I better get going.

Posting in this thread has helped me make the argument stronger, so I appreciate those of you who have given good arguments against my argument (as stated on the 1st and 14th page). Also, since I am in the middle of writing the book, any suggestions to make it better would be appreciated. I want to thank @fdrake for his comments, because some of the issues he raised has helped me to think about the testimonial evidence in other ways.

Thanks,
Sam

P.S. I am still trying to decide on a title. One possible title is...

Does Consciousness Survive Death?
A Philosopher's Look at the Evidence

This is the unedited preface to my book.

Preface

The goal of this book is to look at near death experiences (NDEs) in terms of the testimonial evidence. Some of the questions are, starting with the primary question of this book: Does consciousness survive the death of the body? Do NDEs give us enough testimonial evidence to warrant belief in an afterlife? Will we see our loved one’s again? Should we be afraid of death? These are some of the questions that mankind has grappled with for thousands of years; and although the conclusion of the main argument is about whether consciousness survives death, there are many other implications and conclusions that can be inferred from the evidence.

We will not only examine the testimonial evidence, but we will examine it as a measure of what we can claim to know about surviving death. Can we say with confidence that there is enough evidence to make the claim that, “I know my existence extends beyond the scope of my physical body.” So, part of the thrust of this book is an epistemological journey, namely, one of knowledge. This is what will separate this book from others that have been written on the subject of NDEs, namely, what can we know?

The subject of what we can claim to know, especially in terms of testimonial evidence, is highly controversial. Especially since testimonial evidence is seen by many in the scientific community as not reliable enough to establish the conclusion we are seeking. In fact, according to some, testimonial evidence is generally not seen as a reliable source for grounding many of our beliefs. While this is true in many instances, we will try to disabuse you of the notion that testimonial evidence is always weak. In fact, testimonial evidence can be very strong under the right conditions.

The analysis of the testimony will not be from a religious perspective, which is to say, that we will not look at the evidence in terms of any religious point of view or doctrine.

The book will be divided into three parts. Part 1 is a common-sense view of NDEs, which will present the facts and arguments in a relatively easy to understand format. Part 2 will be about what we can speculate about, that is, a portion of the speculations will have some evidentiary support, while other speculations will have little to no evidentiary support. This will be the fun part of the book. Sometimes it is fun just to speculate what might or might not be the case based on little to no evidence.

For those of you who want a more in-depth analysis of some of the subject matter, there will be a third section added at the end of the book. This third section will defend, for example, the epistemological view taken in the first chapter.

Finally, after looking at the evidence we will make a bold claim about what we can know, if anything, about surviving death. So, part of the goal of the first section of this book is to establish knowledge, not to express an opinion, nor to express an article of faith. We want to know! Can we?

First, that testimonial evidence is a valid way of justifying one's conclusions, and moreover, one's beliefs. Most of what we know comes from the testimony of others. Thus, it's a way of attaining knowledge. — Sam26

The weight you put on purely testimonial evidence should be inversely proportional to the practical importance of accepting the testimony as true and making decisions about your own and others' lives, well-being, etc. based on it.

So, for example, someone at work tells you, "Man, yesterday I got pulled over for going 80 mph in a 65 zone . . ." and all you have to go by is their claim, then it's fine to believe them, since there's really nothing at stake in believing them--no practical upshot, as you already know that it's possible to get pulled over for being 15 mph over a limit, etc., nothing that's very important re making decisions about your life or anyone else's life, etc.

However, if someone at work tells you, "Bill just kicked me hard in the shin and told me he was going to kill my family," and you're the boss, then you'd better have something other than the guy's testimony to support the claim before you make decisions about Bill's continued employment at the company. For example, if he supposedly kicked the accuser hard in the shin, their should be some sign of that on the accuser's shin. We shouldn't just go by testimony in cases where anything important is at stake.

We shouldn't just go by testimony in cases where anything important is at stake. — Terrapin Station

Of course, and if you read my argument carefully, you would know that I deal with this question. I deal with it by pointing our what makes testimonial evidence strong, as opposed to weak.

Of course, and if you read my argument carefully, you would know that I deal with this question. I deal with it by pointing our what makes testimonial evidence strong, as opposed to weak. — Sam26

Re your strength comments, in my view, multiple reports, etc. only matter if we have evidence that the persons couldn't possibly have heard others' reports, and we're only going to have that in a strictly controlled setting.

Physical evidence is necessary.

I'm not only or even primarily thinking about this in terms of consciousness surviving the body. It applies to everything in my view (that is, it should), including the plethora of sexual assault claims we've been getting recently. No physical, non-testimonial evidence=nothing should happen to anyone in my view.

Physical evidence is necessary. — Terrapin Station

This is obviously not true, and can be demonstrated with even a cursory examination of the subject of testimonial evidence. I don't need physical evidence, although it helps, to make a reasonable conclusion, we do it all the time. Not only do we do it all the time, but it's central to how we form many justified beliefs. For example, if I have ten people who make the claim that you shot someone at 10th and Main street in Pittsburgh, PA at 2 pm on Monday October 3, 2018, then after a careful examination of the testimony (as presented in my argument on page 14), I can reasonably conclude that you in fact shot someone. Obviously there are things that can strengthen the argument, that's the nature of these kinds of inductive arguments.

On the other hand, if I had one person making the claim, and that person's memory was incomplete, or it couldn't be corroborated, or there was no other evidence, then you would be correct. However, in the cases I'm citing there is a ton of testimonial evidence. It is corroborated, and it can be objectively verified in many of the cases.

If we couldn't generally trust the testimony of people, much of what we know would be invalidated. In fact, much of what we know is based on the testimony of others. There is a huge amount of information about science, history, philosophy, etc., passed to us through testimony. It would be irrational to doubt most of it. Why? Because our very understanding of each other, the world around us, our society and culture is based on the concepts and words we learn from others. Without such testimony we would be lost and reduced to silence, period, end of story. What we learn from our culture and from others relies on the truthfulness of most of what is conveyed to us.

This is obviously not true, — Sam26

First, were not talking about something true or false. We're giving opinions about what sorts of epistemic grounds justify actions, beliefs, etc. There are no (objective) facts about justification; there are merely opinions about it. I gave my opinion. Physical evidence is necessary in my opinion to accept others' testimony about empirical matters as true re making decisions about your own and others' lives, well-being, etc. based on it. Again, as I stated at the start, assent to testimony, when it's only testimony, in my view, should be inversely proportional to the practical importance of believing a claim.

For example, if I have ten people who make the claim that you shot someone at 10th and Main street in Pittsburgh, PA at 2 pm on Monday October 3, 2018, then after a careful examination of the testimony (as presented in my argument on page 14), I can reasonably conclude that you in fact shot someone. — Sam26

So, in my view, you can only reasonably conclude that I shot someone if you have physical evidence that I shot somene. 10,000 people giving you testimony, all agreeing with each other, etc. would be irrelevant. You need physical evidence that I shot someone, in my opinion, to make decisions that have a big practical effect on folks' lives, as would be the case in concluding that I shot someone.

If we couldn't generally trust the testimony of people, much of what we know would be invalidated. In fact, much of what we know is based on the testimony of others. — Sam26

Again, belief solely on testimony should be inversely proportional to the practical effects of that belief. For anything important, we should rely on physical evidence (for empirical claims), and on logical soundness (for non-empirical claims).

First, were not talking about something true or false. We're giving opinions about what sorts of epistemic grounds justify actions, beliefs, etc. — Terrapin Station

This is the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, viz., I'm not giving opinions, you are. Opinions in my book aren't worth much. How to correctly reason to a conclusion is not a matter of opinion. Besides if you're just presenting an opinion, why are you so adamant that you are correct. One opinion, as far as I can determine, is as good as another.

This is the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, viz., I'm not giving opinions, you are. Opinions in my book aren't worth much. How to correctly reason to a conclusion is not a matter of opinion. Besides if you're just presenting an opinion, why are you so adamant that you are correct. One opinion, as far as I can determine, is as good as another. — Sam26

That I'm giving an opinion wouldn't at all imply that I feel that all opinions are just as worthwhile. I have the opinion that I do because it's the way that I feel about it. I'm not going to equally feel every way about it. You certainly don't think that anyone equally has every opinion of the tastiness of anchovies simply because it's only a matter of personal taste. (As if you'd think that anyone simultaneously thinks all of "They're yummy," " They're awful," "They're my favorite food," "They make me nauseous," etc. --you'd have to have no conception of what opinions even are to think that something being an opinion would suggest that anyone considers all opinions to equally apply.)

It would be your burden to establish that there is indeed a fact re what objectively justifies anything.

Anyway, people having NDEs and issuing reports about it are people who still have bodies, and they're people who always had bodies, even during the period when they were declared medically dead.

Was there any conscious experience during the time that they were declared medically dead? That's impossible to know. What it seemed like to the subject isn't necessarily what was the case. But even if there had been, it's important to keep in mind that there's no reason to expect the medical criteria to be akin to some sort of absolute ontological fact rather than being a practical matter from a particular third-person observational perspective.

You certainly don't think that anyone equally has every opinion of the tastiness of anchovies simply because it's only a matter of personal taste. (As if you'd think that anyone simultaneously thinks all of "They're yummy," " They're awful," "They're my favorite food," "They make me nauseous," etc. --you'd have to have no conception of what opinions even are to think that something being an opinion would suggest that anyone considers all opinions to equally apply.) — Terrapin Station

You seem to be confusing the concept of subjective and objective. It's true that my personal tastes about anchovies is subjective, and it's based on a subjective opinion. My personal tastes are mind-dependent. So if I say I like anchovies based on my subjective opinion, that in itself doesn't hold much weight in terms of other subjective opinions on anchovies. However, I'm not talking about subjective feelings, which don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of having objective knowledge or asserting an objective truth. My feelings about the Earth having one moon has nothing to do with the objective knowledge or truth about the Earth having one moon. It's an objective fact that the Earth has one moon, and your feelings about that fact, have nothing to do with whether the fact obtains.

That said, what I was asserting in my previous posts, is that correct reasoning is not based on your feelings either, it's not like giving you my feelings about anchovies. Take a test in calculus based on your subjective feelings or opinions and see how far that gets you. There are objective rules and principles that guide correct reasoning (logic), so it's not a matter of subjective opinion like you're claiming. This is also true of mathematics, we're not talking about subjective feelings when it comes to doing the problem correctly. You either follow the rules, or you get it wrong.

I don't know how much you've been following my writings on epistemology, but I'm not new to this subject. I've been studying the subject for many years, and I've given a lot of thought to it. That in itself doesn't make me right, but it does lend weight to what I'm saying. I'm not just pulling these thoughts out of midair.

You seem to be confusing the concept of subjective and objective. It's true that my personal tastes about anchovies is subjective, and it's based on a subjective opinion. My personal tastes are mind-dependent. So if I say I like anchovies based on my subjective opinion, that in itself doesn't hold much weight in terms of other subjective opinions on anchovies. However, I'm not talking about subjective feelings, which don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of having objective knowledge or asserting an objective truth. My feelings about the Earth having one moon has nothing to do with objective knowledge or truth. It's an objective fact that the Earth has one moon, and your feelings about that fact, have nothing to do with whether the fact obtains. — Sam26

Nope, not confusing anything. Whether the Earth has one moon is an objective fact. Whether x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact. And no knowledge is objective. (Propositional) Knowledge is justifed true belief. Well, least controversial there is that beliefs are mind-dependent. Beliefs do not obtain mind-independently.

I'm an anti-realist on logic and mathematics (I'm basically a combo of a subjectivist and social constructivist, as I am with language, and I see logic and mathematics as different sorts of languages). The social conventions involved with test-taking do not determine the ontological nature of logic and mathematics.

I'm an anti-realist on all abstracts, by the way. There are no real (a la objective) abstract existents.

I didn't say anything about you being new to the topic. I'm not either. Not being new to the topic, presumably you're familiar with the idea that not everyone is going to agree with you, even on some of the most fundamental stuff. And presumably you're not going to assume that folks disagreeing with you are doing so because they're not familiar with the field, or because they're "confused" or anything like that.

Nope, not confusing anything. Whether the Earth has one moon is an objective fact. Whether x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact. And no knowledge is objective. (Propositional) Knowledge is justifed true belief. Well, least controversial there is that beliefs are mind-dependent. Beliefs do not obtain mind-independently. — Terrapin Station

You agree that the Earth having one moon is an objective fact. Okay, we agree on this. However, you also say in your next statement that "[w]hether x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact." I would say it depends on what you mean. I'm assuming you mean that in logic when using a deductive or an inductive arguments, the method used in logic to justify an argument is not objective fact. In other words modus ponens is not an objective fact of logic.

I still think that part of the problem is in our views of subjective and objective. I would say that something that is subjective is mind dependent, so I like orange juice is dependent on what I feel or think about oranges. So the fact is dependent on me in a significant way, the fact would cease to be a fact if later in life my tastes changed. This is not only an example of a subjective fact, but also contingent fact. Of course all subjective facts are contingent. One could also say that it is a contingent truth, since the truth of the statement depends on me. It must also be pointed out that statements are said to be true or false, that is, epistemology (knowledge as justified true belief) is something that occurs in language (language-games). Facts, whether subjective or objective either obtain in reality or not. We use statements to reflect facts, so if I say, "Sam likes oranges," then I'm saying that it is true of that statement, that it reflects a particular fact, viz., that I like oranges. So there is a correspondence between this particular statement and the fact in reality (whether subjective or objective). The statement mirrors, reflects, or corresponds with reality. Note also, that the fact associated with the statement, "I like oranges," is also an abstract fact, or an abstract truth, it does not reflect a physical object like the statement, "The Earth has one moon."

Objective facts are mind-independent, that is, the fact is not dependent on me, but is separate from how I think about it. No matter how I feel or think about the fact that the Earth has one moon, the fact will still be a fact even if I cease to exist, and even if there are no minds to apprehend the fact. This is quite different from a subjective fact, which is dependent on me. If I cease to exist there would be no present case of Sam liking oranges. It would only be a fact of the past. The statement that the Earth has one moon is a statement that reflects an objective truth. Again, though, when talking about truth, we are talking about statements. When talking about facts we are talking about things, whether physical or abstract, that exist in reality, apart from how we talk about them. There is much more that can be said about abstract ideas and minds in relation to reality, but I will refrain for now.

There are facts about language too, so facts can reference things in or about language, and this is also part of reality. However, it is also true that language is mind-dependent, so how can there be objective facts of language? Is not part of the definition of subjective, mind-dependent? Yes. However, not everything that is mind-dependent is subjective. There are things that minds do that reflect facts in the world. Thus, minds create language, and as such language is an objective fact of the world.

There is something interesting here that makes me think of Wittgenstein's private language argument. Wittgenstein points out a problem with trying to create a private language, and the problem is associated with rule-following. Rule-following is not something I learn in isolation, that is, I learn to follow rules in a linguistic culture, so it necessarily has a social component. Note that we can objectively observe whether someone is following a rule, based on the rules of a particular language-game. Thus, correct language usage is an objective part of the reality of our lives. This is true even though minds are a necessary component of language.

Now let us consider the statement, "...x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact." Logic is a language, and logic is based on the rules that define how we justify arguments. The rules that define how this is done is not based on any one person's idea of how or what it means to justify an argument (it is not subjectively defined). The rules of logic are objective, that is, mind-independent in that they are part of the reality of language use. We can objectively observe whether or not you are following the rules of logic.

There are two aspects of mind-dependence that we have to be clear about. It is true that language is mind-dependent, but this does not take away from the fact that language, although created by minds, has an objective reality that is independent of any one mind. The creation of cars is dependent on minds, but once the car is created, it is an objective fact of reality, and the fact is independent of a mind/s. There is a lot more to this idea, and it is not simple to understand. Unfortunately I will not be able to work out all the details of this in a few short paragraphs.

My point though, is that it is an objective fact of logic, that arguments are justified in particular ways. Thus, I would dispute the idea that "...x justifies the claim that P is not an objective fact." And while it is true that propositions reflect truth, it is also true that the way propositions are used, can reflect objective facts about their use in language.

I cannot believe that you think there is no knowledge that is objective knowledge. This is a misunderstanding of knowledge, and the meaning of knowledge. There are tons of examples of objective knowledge. I do not feel I have to even defend this, because it is so obviously false, for more reasons than I can count.

Of course beliefs are mind-dependent, but so what, that does not mean that beliefs cannot reflect or mirror objective reality. Stated beliefs do occur independently of minds, they occur in language, which although created by minds, has an objective component as part of the reality of language. There are beliefs that are nonlinguistic, but this is outside our epistemological language-games.

Where in the world did you get this epistemology from? It would takes months of writing to unravel so many confusions. It did make me think of some new ideas though.

I'm not going to address every single thing I'd need to address in such a long post. I don't like the idea of basically "writing books back and forth." Let's just focus on one thing at a time.

Okay, so:

I would say that something that is subjective is mind dependent — Sam26

Me too.

Now,

Logic is a language, and logic is based on the rules that define how we justify arguments. The rules that define how this is done is not based on any one person's idea of how or what it means to justify an argument (it is not subjectively defined). The rules of logic are objective, that is, mind-independent in that they are part of the reality of language use. — Sam26

Okay, if the rules of logic are mind-independent, where, mind-independently, do they obtain? That is, where are they found in the mind-independent world?

I addressed this in my long post. The facts of logic are instantiated in language use. Language has a reality of its own, and we can observe this reality as we observe how language is used amongst people.

Ya, I turned into Michael on that last post.

Hi, I think your approach to the idea of life after death is decent. However, I was wondering, if you avoid the religious/spiritual point of view, what will you say about consciousness that makes it something that should survive after death. In other words, why should it?
Secondly, how is consciousness in relation to our human lives, that is, does it have the capacity to act beyond our physical domain while we're still alive or does it have to wait until the body dies?

Language has a reality of its own, and we can observe this reality as we observe how language is used amongst people. — Sam26

If you're observing people in observing language, then how is language not mind-dependent? Are you saying something only about non-mental aspects of language, like sounds that people make or marks they make on paper, or actions they make in response to sounds or marks, or?

Hi, I think your approach to the idea of life after death is decent. However, I was wondering, if you avoid the religious/spiritual point of view, what will you say about consciousness that makes it something that should survive after death. In other words, why should it?
Secondly, how is consciousness in relation to our human lives, that is, does it have the capacity to act beyond our physical domain while we're still alive or does it have to wait until the body dies? — BrianW

Good question. One of the reasons to conclude that consciousness survives death is that one of the common elements of NDEs is that people see their deceased mother and father, and deceased friends. So the continuity of our consciousness seems to remain intact after we die, and there are other reasons too, but this is one of the common reasons.

Your second question is more difficult to answer. My opinion, based on some evidence, is that we do have contact with the other side, and the other side is familiar with what's going on here. I also think that we are much higher beings than we are in this human form. This reality is a dumbed down version of reality, almost like an illusion of the mind, and there is good evidence for this.

I spent a lot of time writing that long post to answer these questions, and you're making me re-write what I already wrote.

I'm talking about the act of communicating with concepts using language. The creation of language is mind-dependent, but the actions as we use language with one another is mind-independent, it's part of the reality of language use. For example, you can watch someone play chess and know objectively that they are familiar with the rules. You can see them move the pieces and plan their moves. Part of the objective nature of language is how people use the concepts, are they using the concepts according to the rules of language.

It's true that my personal tastes about anchovies is subjective — Sam26

No. Your personal tastes are dependent on your physical/emotional reaction to consuming anchovies. There's an objective fact of the matter regarding your gustatory tastes.

and it's [personal taste] based on a subjective opinion. — Sam26

No it's not. Your personal tastes are not dependent on anyone's opinion. If you've actually consumed anchovies, you don't have an opinion on whether or not you like them - you either do or you don't.

I'm talking about the act of communicating with concepts using language. The creation of language is mind-dependent, but the actions as we use language with one another is mind-independent, it's part of the reality of language use. For example, you can watch someone play chess and know objectively that they are familiar with the rules. You can see them move the pieces and plan their moves. Part of the objective nature of language is how people use the concepts, are they using the concepts according to the rules of language. — Sam26

When you watch someone play chess, you can say that they are following the rules as you understand them (where your understanding is subjective, and your deducing of this, your knowing of this, is also subjective, not objective), but you are only surmising that they even have any mental content and are not a robot or something like that.

The objective stuff is the observable motions they're making. Actions aren't mind-independent in that they involve mentality a la intentionality and so forth.

With language, the only objective part is the sounds we make, the marks we make, and the motions we make in response to sounds and marks.

Rules per se, where they count as rules semantically (and indeed the semantic aspect of anything) are not objective.

And you can't actually see anyone plan their moves. We say that as a manner of speaking, where we take certain motions to be indicative of that person having mental content and by analogy with knowledge of ourselves we assume that they're doing something like we're doing when we look the same way, but we can't actually observe anyone else having mentality.

There's nothing at all objective, or literally shareable, about concepts.

No. Your personal tastes are dependent on your physical/emotional reaction to consuming anchovies — ChrisH

Which makes it subjective. It's mental content, something mental that your brain is doing. Emotions period are mental, they're a brain function. Mentality is physical. It's something our brains do. Mentality is a subset of brain functionality from a first-person perspective. "Subjective" does not mean or imply "not physical," a fortiori because there is nothing extant that's not physical .

If you've actually consumed anchovies, you don't have an opinion on whether or not you like them - you either do or you don't. — ChrisH

Liking or not liking something is your opinion, and it's subjective--it's a brain phenomenon, a mental phenomenon, what your brain is like in some respects from a first-person perspective.

That I'm giving an opinion wouldn't at all imply that I feel that all opinions are just as worthwhile. I have the opinion that I do because it's the way that I feel about it. I'm not going to equally feel every way about it. You certainly don't think that anyone equally has every opinion of the tastiness of anchovies simply because it's only a matter of personal taste. (As if you'd think that anyone simultaneously thinks all of "They're yummy," " They're awful," "They're my favorite food," "They make me nauseous," etc. -- you'd have to have no conception of what opinions even are to think that something being an opinion would suggest that anyone considers all opinions to equally apply.)

It would be your burden to establish that there is indeed a fact re what objectively justifies anything. — Terrapin Station

So, you're demanding an objective basis to believe that there are indeed objective judgements, having already declared that there's not really any such thing as an objective basis. Talk about a stacked deck!

So, you're demanding an objective basis to believe that there are indeed objective judgements, having already declared that there's not really any such thing as an objective basis. — Wayfarer

I didn't say anything even remotely resembling "There are no objective bases for anything."

Oh, right. I took this to be the meaning of:

There are no (objective) facts about justification; there are merely opinions about it. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps it's a distinction that I'm missing?