alt Hacker News> The fact that philosophy hasn't recognized and rejected this argument based on this speaks volumes of the quality of arguments accepted there.
That's one possibility. The other is that your pomposity and dismissiveness towards the entire field of philosophy speaks volumes on how little you know about either philosophical arguments in general or this philosophical argument in particular.
Another ad hominem, I'd like you to refute my claim that Searle's argument is essentially 100% magical thinking.
And yes, if for example, medicine would be no worse at curing cancer than it is today, yet doctors asserted that crystal healing is a serious study, that would reflect badly on the field at large, despite most of it being sound.