> There's not an argument in this entire paragraph. Is it meant to be a list of pointers to arguments?
As stated, it's a recap, or summary, of arguments previously made. So no, the arguments themselves are not contained or fully expressed in the summary. In this sense you're correct that it's a list of pointers to arguments--arguments which can be readily located earlier in the same thread.
> Neither "X is(n't) flawed," "X is(n't) applicable," nor "X has (very little/lots of) evidence" is an argument.
Correct. Those are conclusions. The arguments presented in support of those conclusions are available earlier in the thread.
> An argument for falsifiability is an argument that the statement of a particular belief has content and is not just a trick of language, but can't be said to be an argument for or against that particular belief.
Agreed. That's why I said the falsifiability of Princeton's hypothesis was not an argument for the likelihood of that hypothesis. I think we're on the same page about this.
As stated, it's a recap, or summary, of arguments previously made. So no, the arguments themselves are not contained or fully expressed in the summary. In this sense you're correct that it's a list of pointers to arguments--arguments which can be readily located earlier in the same thread.
> Neither "X is(n't) flawed," "X is(n't) applicable," nor "X has (very little/lots of) evidence" is an argument.
Correct. Those are conclusions. The arguments presented in support of those conclusions are available earlier in the thread.
> An argument for falsifiability is an argument that the statement of a particular belief has content and is not just a trick of language, but can't be said to be an argument for or against that particular belief.
Agreed. That's why I said the falsifiability of Princeton's hypothesis was not an argument for the likelihood of that hypothesis. I think we're on the same page about this.