I didn’t say you’re a Sadducee.
1. I said that until now it seemed to me that such an approach is the Sadducean approach: not accepting views / Jewish laws / authority that are passed down by tradition from generation to generation by those who transmit the Torah without any proof [something like what Hillel said to the convert who wanted to learn the Written Torah but not the Oral Torah: “Is it not on my authority that you rely?”]
2. It seems to me that you are Orthodox in the halakhic sense, and if so, where for example does the prohibition of selecting on the Sabbath come from? What serious proof do we have for it without the tradition?

And how can we decisively cut with a sharp knife what to accept from the tradition and what not?

In short, the way you strip the medieval authorities (Rishonim) of authority from tradition, that’s how the Sadducees stripped the Pharisees of authority from tradition.
And how do we know that the Pharisees were indeed right?
Do we have proof that the Pharisees were right, or are we just gambling?

As a joke, we should edit your Wikipedia entry and claim that by your own testimony it’s possible that you’re a Sadducee and a Boethusian.
Even though at the time I argued with a certain rabbi about the Rabbi, may he live long, and as I recall he claimed to me that as long as you say there is no authority in matters of belief for the chain of generations, then even if you arrived at all thirteen principles on your own, that means nothing. Because a significant part of the idea of the thirteen principles is the tradition. And understanding too that the others are no less wise than I am…

I’m not discussing either tradition or the Rabbi at all; I’m not busy handing out grades, I’m occupied with definitions.
I’m trying to understand the difference [if there is one] between his approach and the approach of the Sadducees [with the little information I have about them at all].
Does something that is widely accepted as true and as part of the transmission of the Torah over generations among those who transmit the Torah [and we are of course not dealing with scientific facts] obligate me, or not? Is there such a “formal” authority created by the transmitters of the Torah throughout the generations?
I wonder how I can in fact even accept the Written Torah, since it too was transmitted by those same people whose authority I do not accept.

I didn’t say that you said I’m a Sadducee. What I said was that the discussion of whether I am a Sadducee or not is not important in my eyes. The question is what is correct, not what the proper label for it is.
What was transmitted in the tradition from Sinai or by an authorized institution (the Sanhedrin) is valid, and everything else, even if it was transmitted by tradition, is not valid. Very simple. It’s not always simple what came from Sinai or from an authorized institution and what did not, but that is a discussion that has to be conducted in each matter on its own merits.
And indeed, there is no authority to what was created by force of the tradition of the generations. Absolutely not. It has some weight, and there are laws of customs. That’s all. Authority belongs only to the Holy One, blessed be He, or to an authorized institution. By the way, this is not my innovation. This is the accepted rule according to most halakhic decisors. It’s just that from time to time they tend to ignore it.

You and K. (and also the rabbi he quotes) simply do not understand my claim. My claim is that conceptually there is no authority in factual matters. Regarding facts—and it makes no difference whether they are scientific or not (even the coming of the Messiah or divine providence is a fact)—what one can do is convince me that this is the truth, not make a claim to me on the basis of authority. For if I am not convinced, what good does it do for them to tell me that such a position is heresy?! That’s all. Very simple and clear, and whoever disagrees with this is simply confused.

Actually, it seems to me that I did understand that, and that’s why I asked.
I’ll explain in more detail: how do you have before you even one piece of information that you accept as true? For example, the order of prayer.
Do you not rely on those who do not have authority?

I was talking about facts. This is a dialogue of the deaf.

When you say facts, do you mean testimony?
That is, that you accept what is transmitted as testimony, but do not accept what is transmitted as an “independent opinion”?
That, at any rate, is how I understood it.

And here I’m confused.

All the sages’ interpretations derived from the verses are not testimony but rather “independent opinion,” ostensibly.

And if we say that the sages are an authority, from where do we know that? Isn’t that itself just the independent opinion of the transmitters of the Torah from then until today?

I suggest we end it here. You’re raising difficulties when you don’t know at all what is being discussed.
If there is something specific that I wrote that seems unclear to you, please write it explicitly (including citing the source), and we can discuss it. I’m asking for no general declarations about my method, since it is evident that you are not familiar with it.