[Jeff]

Burner - you wrote-: "A more acceptable approach, to me, would be to seek clarification should you have doubts which you have trouble reconciling, rather than directly contest those issues by giving evidential examples of some mistake that you think you may have uncovered."

Think about what you are recommending. You are stating that I need to change my writing approach to resolving contentious theoretical problems to suit your personal tastes of "how best to address an issue". I have never asked that of you, or any other forum member. Why can't you accept my personal falsification approach - finding single examples that contradict, and thereby falsify, a theory (eg. TGM theory), which is quintessentially the Popperian approach? Even if you don't like my Popperian approach, and think that it is too confrontational with respect to your "favorite" theory, why do you simply not accept that it is merely my personal style of thinking, and writing, and why don't you stick to arguing about the "facts" (objective issues)? I personally don't like the way that certain forum members think, and argue, and write, but I don't criticise their stylistic approach. I simply state that I cannot understand another person's posts, without attacking that person (like you and 6bMike are doing with respect to me). I think that my posts may be intellectually confrontational, but I am civilized in the sense that I do not mount personal attacks against other forum member's because I think that they are arrogant, or disrespectful of my "favorite theory".

Regarding "hanging one's hat" on a certain set of beliefs, I do that all the time, but I constantly challenge my own beliefs (the strength of my hat rack), because I believe in the Popperian principle that a "theory" is only valid to the extent that it cannot be falsified, rather than verified.

Jeff.