You appear to be claiming that due to an opinion being controversial, the burden is on the provider of said opinion. If indeed you are making that claim, then I dispute it thusly: the existence of an interventionist Christian god is controversial; by your argument if I deny the existence of an interventionist Christian god I must provide the burden of proof of it's non-existence.
The skeptic never has the burden of proof.
You appear to be claiming that philosophy has goals, if this is the case I should remind you I made no such direct claim in using the word "efficacy".
My criticism was that you suggested your argument was from authority. It wasn't.
I think we're done here?
I'll firstly respond to your above two points:
You made the sweeping claim "If your opinion is controversial, then the burden is on you" however your clam is false by obvious exception. Controversy is not necessarily an indicator of likelihood or lack thereof.
Irrelative of what you believe your criticism to be aimed at, the fact of the matter remains that you appear to have relied on the straw man when you responded as if I claimed philosophy had goals.
And then secondly I'll invite you to respond in kind to the aforementioned particulars repeated for your convenience:
You used the word "we", please identify the group you speak for as I understood I was chatting with you, and if you are speaking for others it would be interesting to know who they might be
First you used the phrase "widely accepted authority" then you changed it to "accepted authority". Since they have different meanings but you used them interchangeably I have concerns that you are trying to alter the timbre of your claims.
Kindly directly quote my so-called "bald assertion" as I question your assessment.
Kindly directly quote my so-called "opinion" as I question your assessment.