For example, if one insists that A has a clear definition, one should then provide the definition. If you can provide 1) no definition, 2) one wrong definition, or 3) multiple definitions, no matter later on what you think is true, when you made the declaration that A has a clear definition, you are based on faith, not on science.

Based on faith is not a bad thing, and it is the correct common practice when doing science. We placed our trust on science giants such Newton or Darwin, and the literature that describe their work. So that we can possibly use their ideas to solve practical problems.

However, it is important to realize that we are acting based on faith. So when the faith is questioned, we should back down to exam the fundamental. This is how giants went beyond the the giants in front of them. Endlessly quoting the work of the other people is not how science work, it is how religions "convince" other people.

In the case of the wool heat transfer coefficient of a wool blanket, one can easily clarify this concept by specify the process of measuring it. I would be very surprised to see any knowledge more than college physics 101 is needed during this process. However I have yet to see anything more than personal attacks here.

By the way I am not at all against personal attacks, or even cursing and swearing. But please do not make it the ONLY content of your post