Hm. In other words, we cannot even agree on the terms of a discussion. But that still does not mean things are as fruitless to discuss (even in different terms) as you maintain:
"The beginning of thought is in disagreement -- not only with others but also with ourselves." Eric Hoffer
I am open to your disagreements, heck, I could hardly be unaware of them. I offer specifically responsive comments to points in a discussion as things go along. As others have just noted here, I make a comment from time to time, and then others seem to spend inordinately many posts trying to categorically exclude my comment FROM any discussion -- rather than simply saying "No, that cannot be right, because this works this way and that works the other way and here is an example: ___????___".
Just as a 'for instance' ...
If there is an objective truth, then "talk like we talk" is simply imitating you to fit in, rather than dealing with the objective truth using other concepts. If magnetism can manage with two mutually exclusive definitions of "field" we can carry on.
Simply saying, "Well, it doesn't feel that way, to me... so that can;t be right..." says not one blooming useful thing when (as I can show) we are expressly manipulating the body's structural balance sensing and compensation systems in the first place. That's what Ark is doing, as noted above. Similarly, seat-of-the-pants pilots end up in progressive spins and craters if they do not learn some counter-intuitive inertial mechanics.
The magnitude of blunt force to my periodic mouse squeak
is interesting, though not usually very informative.
We could take a higher road.