Published by The Blavatsky Archives.  Online Edition copyright 2000.

Methinks Johnson Has "Shot" Himself in the "Foot":
Daniel H. Caldwell Replies to Some of
K. Paul Johnson's Rebuttal Remarks

Part I

Johnson's "Definition" of the Paranormal and Its Bearing
on Henry S. Olcott's Accounts of the Theosophical Masters

by Daniel Caldwell

In Strain at a Gnat, Swallow a Camel, K. Paul Johnson attempted to rebut some of my criticisms (see my work K. Paul Johnson's House of Cards?) of his thesis concerning the Theosophical Mahatmas. I counted more than 40 fallacies and mistakes in Johnson's rebuttal.  Below in Part I as well as in Part II, I have tried to illustrate in some detail two of Johnson's major fallacies.

One of K. Paul Johnson's arguments in Gnat (against certain criticisms raised in my House of Cards critique) reads as follows: