I'd rate those kind of thing more as expressions of difference than "attacks".

"I don't give a fig whether anyone believes that or not" - but you clearly do, because you don't accept it as an answer to your demand for the kind of evidence you ask for, or you wouldn't keep making the same demand.

You require that kind of evidence to make a decision. Fine, that's understood. Why should I "tell you where you're going wrong"? In relation to a whole range of things you're quite right. It's just not the way I work in relation to certain things, and I gave aethetic judgements as an illustration of another field in which I don't work in that way - and one where I rather suspect you might not either, not being an automaton, as I have always assumed. As for using analogies, I see that as a perfectly valid way of explaining my meaning. Problems arise when they get extended beyond strict limits, and I avoid doing that.