I should clarify that my complaint was not about the tone or language. The difficulty I have reading your writing would be solved with exactly the same vocabulary and word order, if only full stops were used normally, to show where sentences start and end.

An alternative solution would be to use another character to indicate where sentences start and end, like a vertical bracket: |

I’m genuinely for your success in the U.S. The fact that I have difficulty reading without a clear sentence boundary indicates that your readership could be even greater than it already is.

Please don’t allow stereotypes to obscure what I’m saying. Again: if you keep exactly the same wording and just clarify when sentences start and end, the problem would be solved.

I just re-read my own comment which you responded to. I should not have been so rude in criticising your writing. Sorry for my insensitivity.

Another reason I found it so confusing to read your blog may have been regional differences in our language use. I live in Australia, I’ve never been to the U.S., and I’m a first generation English speaker un my family. Maybe there’s an additional cognitive load for me because of regional differences. That alone is not usually a problem for me, but without normal full stops the cognitive load adds up.

I see your point about reaching your audience better with colloquial speech and writing. If it’s a mutually exclusive choice between me and them, please continue choosing Americans. That’s where I believe the greater good of your work is.

I prefer colloquial writing as well. I don’t think normal full stops are elitist.

I write like people speak. Colloquial. This is why people read my stuff. It is in fact how more scholars should write. Writing like an elitist isolates you from the world rather than educating it.

I doubt it. It’s probably just more Crank Bayesianism, just like the Kalam Cosmological Argument is Crank Logic. They claim they have evidence that has only a 1 in 10 to the 20th power chance of existing today unless the Book of Mormon were authentic (whatever they take that to mean). If that were true they could get this passed peer review at any prestigious science journal (even particle physics requires no more than a 1 in 10 to the 6th power). There is a reason they won’t.

I’m not sure why you mention this. Is there a point to your comment?

If you mean to identify the set of properly basic knowledge (the uninterpreted irreducibles of present experience) as the only knowledge that obtains logical certainty (and thus isn’t subject to having a probability of being false), I discuss that often. I have a whole section on it in my book Sense and Goodness without God and mention it often here in my articles on epistemology.

Such statements are too void of ontological content to be of much use however. So their being certain offers little epistemological assistance to anyone. A point I also often discuss. See the right margin category index, “epistemology.”

What relevance do they have here? Please explain.