One might just as well argue that burden is on metaphysicists, to show that what they're saying is useful.

That's precisely the proper response to any proposed wonderful activity: show me the payoff.

And don't tell me all the truths you can produce - show the payoff of those truths. Show me what you can do with them, that I might want to have done.

Academia is full of people producing stacks of bits. That activity is very profitable for them, but I fail to see the payoff in many of those bits to anyone else, and in particular, me.

"Am wrtiing" does not equate to "actually have". You need to write it, answer objections and show that it works.

One might just as well argue that burden is on metaphysicists,

Metaphysicians.

to show that what they're saying is useful.

Also, neither Eliezer nor I are logical positivists

OK. The basis of your claim that metaphysics is not the standard one. What, then, is it? No. Metaphysics is meaningful by default, becuse the default meaning of "meaningful" is "comprehensible to others" which metaphsyics is. (Your tried to shift the debate from "meaningful" to "useful". Don't). There's no debate about whether ichthyology is meaningful. We don't assume by default that academic disciplines are meaningless. The claim that metaphysics is meaningless is extrordinary, so the burden fals on the maker to defend it.

But anyway, I'm not going to play burden of proof tennis.

You have already started. You inititally placed the burden on your opponents. The fact that you are unwilling to justify that manouvre does not mean the burden rests there.

Mark's final paragraph offered only contradictions (of our views) rather than counter-arguments.

I thoought Chalmers was meant as a counterexample -- of scientific philosophy Done Right.

there is no point in criticising philosophy unless you have (1) a better way of (2) answering the same questions.

Um... I'm writing an entire sequence about that, and so is Eliezer...

So you don't gave a better way, strictly speaking, you are in the process of formulating one.... but you are sufficiently confident of success to offer criticism of other approaches in the basis of your expected results?

One might just as well argue that burden is on metaphysicists, to show that what they're saying is useful.

Physicalism is metaphysics,