Philosophy revels in argument substitution, according to which, whenever there isn't sufficient evidence then philosophers can substitute an argument instead. This must stop. If there isn't enough evidence to say one way or another, then an argument on behalf of one way or another is a waste of time. Making an argument without the requisite evidence is unnecessary and earns philosophy its recognized irrelevance and subsequently its derisiveness. Where there isn't sufficient evidence for an idea then a truly wise lover of truth would simply say "I don't know" and not write an article on it. It's this lack of authenticity among philosophers that galls so many non-philosophers, especially when believing philosophers muck up the discipline by writing in defense of their sect specific religious beliefs that by their very virtue have little or no evidence for them.