Climate Change, page-177

No mate. I came to the right conclusion. You just realised how shocking your argument was so you tried to change it but of course that means your new response now lacks any meaning.

If climate change zealots are, by default, the experts in climate change, it follows that eugenicists are the experts in eugenics. If you don't want the latter to be true, then you need to stop arguing the former.

Now, all of this could be circumvented if you had a definition that delineated what you (in a circular argument) claim to be pseudoscience vs what you believe is True Scotsman science.

But you don't. That's been established. You have a definition that delineates nothing from anything.

So you have no right to ask a non-chiropractor their opinion on chiropractic - and especially not a direct self-interested competitor to chiropractor. According to your definition, chiropractic is science and therefore chiropractors are valid experts. Whether or not you would publicly debate them is irrelevant. You *must* trust them. The way you demand we trust climate "scientists".

You can't delineate. You can't define science in any useful manner. Until you do, you obviously can't ask for anything "scientific". Well you can. You do. But it just proves how pathologically dishonest you are to ask for something when you've already put the goalposts on the back of a truck and started revving the engine.