I think you’re confusing sex with mating types again, but as long as we can agree for anisogamy
It’s rather silly that you say “inane assumptions about the future of scientific models” and then go on to describe the same thing in different words.
You’re saying “the map is not the territory”, which is true, but ignoring that the territory has been observed to have an attribute universally. The territory could change, but until it does, it’s correct to note the current universal reality of that attribute in the map.
You’re basically saying “Yeah, but you could just be a brain in a jar!” or “What if electrons stopped existing!”. Interesting thought experiment but silly to take seriously.
I think you’re confusing sex with mating types again, but as long as we can agree for anisogamy
It’s rather silly that you say “inane assumptions about the future of scientific models” and then go on to describe the same thing in different words.
You’re saying “the map is not the territory”, which is true, but ignoring that the territory has been observed to have an attribute universally. The territory could change, but until it does, it’s correct to note the current universal reality of that attribute in the map.
You’re basically saying “Yeah, but you could just be a brain in a jar!” or “What if electrons stopped existing!”. Interesting thought experiment but silly to take seriously.