nostr:npub1skvad2l2wrxgdmt6yxk9kt2rjhw5tucjzhf54pktfq2gg0qhgwyqdlaky3 They're absolutely right to raise the points they do. But the point about certain advocates and media taking demonstration of auxiliary elements for proof of the whole (something that unfortunately can + does happen even with solid theories) is independent of the question of IIT being a pseudoscience. To clearly communicate the latter claim, a minimum would be: a) What is IIT? b) What is a pseudoscience? c) Does IIT meet these criteria?

Definitions matter; otherwise we end up here!