Wow, Bill D, I now fully see how to make something non-complex, really complex. Good job :)

I believe my main point (at least one of them, I kinda forget how many there were now...but there likely weren't many) is that it is much easier to follow science advancements on one issue than philosophy (my statement of being debunked). I believe the person on the link I provided gave a better explanation of that than me.

My other point relates more to a personal experience I had years ago while in University, while taking about four philosophy courses, (one, btw, was the philosophy of science).

One class was dedicated to discussing whether there could be movement or not. After going through all the different historic philosophical attempts to prove whether one could move from point A to point B, or not (including Zeno's motion paradoxes, which may or may not have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction to this day), at the end of the class, quite puzzlingly, no person, including the Prof had any difficulty moving out of the room.... thus I personally observed the legible impact the discussion had on the class...that led me to what I amusingly alluded to in my earlier (and shorter) post.

I now admit, I should have avoided the temptation, to minimize the "scorn" (not a quote) past down upon me.