Re: The Promise of Forth

John "Strawman" Doty wrote:

>... says a man who believes that *any* evidence may be canceled by the 
>concept of a "null hypothesis".

Please provide a direct quote or Message-ID where I said that I
believe such a thing.

>... says a man who thinks a method of reasoning that has a historical 
>record of repeated failure constitutes "critical thinking".

The definition of Critical Thinking is well established.  Even if you
are correct and the basic principles behind critical thinking result
in failure, that still doesn't change the definition. 

>... says a man who has never correctly identified any fallacy in my 
>argument.

Having trouble making up your mind? Yesterday your story was
"to worry excessively about fallacies indicates a profound 
commitment to avoid facing reality", but today you deny engaging
in logical fallacies as if you thought the concept to be valid.

BTW, I am not the only one here who has correctly identified 
logical fallacies in your arguments.

>Should 18th century physicists have abandoned Newtonian mechanics and 
>returned to a belief in Aristotelian physics when Berkeley showed that 
>it was based on fallacious reasoning? Straight answer, no evasion please.

The above is a classic example of the of limited/false alternatives.
You constructed the above argument with the unwarranted assumption 
that the only possible alternative to Newtonian mechanics is 
Aristotelian physics.  It is also a classic example of the begging 
the question fallacy -- arriving at a conclusion based on statements 
that themselves have not been proven to be true.  In this case you 
assume that George Berkeley showed that Issac Newton used fallacious 
reasoning.