Which is ironic considering that I'm the epistemic fallibilist & moral probabilist.  I hope my style would improve absent the space constraints of a combox, where I opt for dense prose & jargon out of concern for rigor, but end up sacrificing accessibility & personability.  I try to measure the former in terms of interactivity & reactions. I'll take your critique regarding the latter to heart because I don't want to sacrifice interpersonal values to advance interideological counterpoints. In our attacks on ideas, we don't want to attack persons -not only because of ad hominem fallacies, but - because of the demands of justice and aspirations of charity. Be well and thanks for the idea exchange and relational feedback.