Well said Don.

I just want to point out that I believe that any well-developed paradigm or philosophic worldview should be criticized, or judged, by its own standards of evidence. So when I write a critique like this one, I assume the role of someone holding to whatever the inherent standard of evidence is, and not judging it from my personal philosophic worldview. There is no single truth in this kind of discussion, merely attempts to conform in some way, and to some degree, with what seems to be more encompassing and veridical. The benefit of approaching it this way is that ones arguments have more force. So I want my readers to understand that when they see me arguing from positions that seem at odds with my own deeply held position, it’s just a strategy.