There's an irony in playing the "Oh crap I left the stove on" excuse when you're entire argument is a thousand word salad variations on "reality isn't really real."
One of which is his excuse for not needing to qualify as a philosopher. Specifically he's trying to conflate the goals of philosophy with the standards of competence as a philosopher. No, if two philosophers disagree then we don't say one of them must be incompetent. But that doesn't stop us from qualifying a student of philosophy according to his ability, for example, to summarize that disagreement, to state the lines of thought that lead to it, to interpret the disagreement according to yet a third line of reasoning, or to propose ways in which the disagreement might be resolved. Tommy is trying to say that because philosophy is based on disagreement more often than not, it must therefore be meaningless to ask by what standards one qualifies as a philosopher.
Tommy proposes that "studying" it for 25 years does. That is, hidden behind his claim is the premise that his study qualifies him in some way to speak more authoritatively or correctly that other people on whatever philosophy he suggests trumps science in the search for God. He simply cannot make that claim without accepting that proficiency in philosophy is a thing, and that it can be measured. He already measured his proficiency and Skeptic Ginger's, and concluded that he measured more favorably. Therefore his new claim that there is no objective basis by which to measure philosophical prowess is just
ad hoc revision. Yes, there exists a standard by which proficiency in philosophy can be measured in just the same way we measure proficiency in nursing or bread-making. Here is one:
https://philosophy.columbia.edu/content/major-requirements.
I suspect Tommy knows such standards exist. He proposes to ignore them because he says those are standards more appropriate to "exact" sciences. Although he doesn't say what those are, I suspect he means sciences such as nursing, since he specifically means to contrast his expertise with Skeptic Ginger's. As soon as someone makes a claim to expertise and then follows it up by waffling over how such claims are or should be measured, or what it means to be an expert, the conscientious reader should proceed with skepticism and caution.
I was pleased to grow up in a town that hosted a world-renowned institute of baking. As such, many of my acquaintances were expert bakers. They learned the science of baking: biology, chemistry, heat transfer, etc. They could also bake the most fabulous things. They were popular at holiday parties for the obvious reason. It was fascinating to hear them talk about what they did in the science of baking, something that not everyone would necessarily consider an "exact" science.
I know this. My personal library includes well over 30 centimeters of shelf space devoted to books on baking, all of which I have read. Nevertheless despite my efforts I am unable to produce a passable loaf of bread. My family disagrees. Mindful of my feelings, they chew through my offerings and give me the encouragement I can expect from such mindfulness, and which I frankly need to keep at it. If I had to sell my wares to earn my living, I would probably be better off using my loaves as shoes. Why? Because in spite of variety and proclivity, there exists an objective standard of bread-making, and I fail it.
This is not to say that every self-starter must inevitably fail. It is, however, to say that claiming vicinity with the subject or a self-directed program of study of it does not equate to a meaningful claim to authority. The
sine qua non of pudding is the eating of it. One of my colleagues in science outreach has qualifications very similar to mine. He has a degree in engineering from a prestigious English university. He has worked for years in aerospace at a well-known company. He also happens to be an expert baker. How do we know this? Because he submitted his skills to a televised test judged by people who are well-known experts in the art of baking. And prevailed. He is entirely self-taught as a baker, but there has been an adjudication of his professed skills according to reasonable standards. Our engineer-
cum-baker also professes proficiency in music and theater. And he demonstrates proficiency by performing in auditioned venues. Me too. I'm a musician and an actor, the latter being almost entirely self-taught. I audition for, and win, parts that pay, and which are seen by audiences numbering in the tens of thousands. Similarly I compete for, and win, paying gigs. These are useful (if not entirely objective) measurements of proficiency.
When one studies philosophy with the aim of being proficient enough at it to make one's living at it -- which generally means speaking, writing, and teaching competitively -- one is subjected to a program of study suggested by the link I gave above. In such a program, the student will be assigned readings he might not encounter in a self-devised program. He will be given responsibility for subjects beyond those that pique his interest. But more importantly, he will be tested on his comprehensive knowledge of them and his ability to reason among them. It is this adjudication which sets apart the casual student from the serious student, regardless of what auspices he learns under. Sadly, badly-tossed word salads in an open forum do not substitute for the rigors one would normally associate with a more formal program of study. Hence when Tommy says he has "studied," and then fogs up the parameters by which such a study would be measured, we simply reject his argument that his "25 years of study" amounts to something by which he can simply sweep other people's points aside.
