I scanned it for red flags before reading the whole thing. Finding several, I decided that it wasn't worth my time to read the whole thing.
Ah, the mystical 'red flags' that you can't actually discuss. The only time you referred to the content you were woefully incorrect as you didn't actually read it and seeing as you didn't read any of the methodology I rather doubt you found it to be full of 'red flags'.
Frankly, my patience with "check out this long PDF or video that I assure you is wonderful and give me detailed objections"-type requests is pretty low. It takes virtually no effort at all to post a link, but demands a disproportionate amount of effort to respond.
Personally, I quite like to read things on topics that interest me to the extent I bother to discuss the repeatedly on the internet. I often find that I learn stuff from this process and that it helps me to challenge my assumptions. Perhaps we are different in that regard though.
I scanned the PDF and did a quick search for terms like "sample". I didn't find them. As I said, though, I did find enough red flags for me to decide not to bother with it further.
Just say you weren't interested in reading it rather than pretending you found it to be full of 'red flags'. It is a perfectly reasonable response.
I'm satisfied that I gave your precious article a fair review that was more than proportional to the effort it took for your to copy-and-paste a URL.
Again, many apologies for providing access to a well written and interesting article on a subject we were discussing and you didn't understand. Much better to stay ignorant and respond with facepalms and call it 'nonsense' as it doesn't support your assumptions.
From here on out, I'm not going to talk about this unless I get some quid-pro-quo from you: your PDF is not an argument. If you want to cite it to support your arguments, fine, but I'm only going to respond to the arguments that you make from here on out. Otherwise, we get into Gish Gallop territory, and I'm not going to play that game.
You know my arguments because I made them previously in multiple threads you have been involved in, including one specifically on the Spinozan v Cartesian views. The reason I posted it was because I was bored with you misrepresenting all of my arguments and demonstrating that you didn't understand them.
Not much point in citing it now anyway as your thorough analysis has revealed it to be chock full of 'red flags' that mean it can be dismissed out of hand.
You've decided that I'm speaking nonsense, and also decided that any source that agrees with me must also be woefully flawed. Not much room for further worthwhile discussion really. C'est la vie.
I'll leave you with Daniel Kahneman's view of the methodologically flawed pop psychologist Daniel Gilbert:
“[Dan Gilbert] proposed that you must first know what the idea would mean if it were true. Only then can you decide whether or not to unbelieve it. The initial attempt to believe is an automatic operation of System 1, which involves the construction of the best possible interpretation of the situation. Even a nonsensical statement, Gilbert argues, will evoke initial belief.
Try his example: “whitefish eat candy.” You probably were aware of vague impressions of fish and candy as an automatic process of associative memory searched for links between the two ideas that would make sense of the nonsense.
Gilbert sees unbelieving as an operation of System 2, and he reported an elegant experiment to make his point. The participants saw nonsensical assertions, such as “a dinca is a flame,” followed after a few seconds by a single word, “true” or “false.” They were later tested for their memory of which sentences had been labeled “true.” In one condition of the experiment subjects were required to hold digits in memory during the task. The disruption of System 2 had a selective effect: it made it difficult for people to “unbelieve” false sentences. In a later test of memory, the depleted participants ended up thinking that many of the false sentences were true.
The moral is significant: when System 2 is otherwise engaged, we will believe almost anything. System 1 is gullible and biased to believe, System 2 is in charge of doubting and unbelieving, but System 2 is sometimes busy, and often lazy. Indeed, there is evidence that people are more likely to be influenced by empty persuasive messages, such as commercials, when they are tired and depleted.”
Kahneman, Daniel. “Thinking, Fast and Slow.”
The paper he is referring to is actually
"How mental systems believe" It's another interesting read, and only 13 pages!