Yeah, that’s another phrase for it. But it’s still basically proving an assumption false by showing how it leads to a contradiction. If the assumption doesn’t lead to a contradiction, it means nothing to the validity of the assumption.

]]>But, as you said, that only works in formal logic.

]]>1. The article is, of course, absolutely correct; a hypothesis test can only reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject it and

2. This article will make no difference at all as the percentage of the population that understands what the concept of a “null hypothesis” is microscopically small.

And of those who do understand what a null hypothesis is and continues to believe anyway eventually fall back to “I believe because it makes me feel better” situation. :)

]]>Of course it’s pretty much impossible to use this method in theology because it’s part of formal, symbolic logic, and theology doesn’t use that. Theology uses propositional logic for the most part.

So, in short, you’re completely correct in saying that Presuppositionalism is circular logic. Or, as I prefer to say, circular illogic.

]]>