To quote: "This assumption, even hypothetical of the brain in a vat is similar to the same argument of nonsense of any ideas with no evidence." Sounds like a harsh criticism to me. Where is the devil's advocacy in this? This is no more playing devil's advocate than if you point out that "it could be raining at the moment although I haven't looked outside." 1. "...similar to the same argument of nonsense of any ideas with no evidence". So it is nonsense to consider any idea without evidence. 2. "many things can be true with no evidence yet..." + subsequent comments about prejudice against certain types of evidence. So it is not nonsense to consider any idea without evidence. Now connect the dots. Ooh, is that a picture of inconsistency which I see before me, the paintbrush toward your hand?