Rejoinder.

The article presents the author's response to comments on his paper discussing randomization analysis of experimental data developed by researcher R.A. Fisher. The author challenges Fisher nonparametric test. The logic of the test is same as that of the paired-comparison test. When the author said that the Fisher randomization test is not logically viable, he only meant that the logic of the test procedure is not viable. The author has no objection to prerandomization as such. Indeed, he thinks that the scientist ought to prerandomize and have the physical act of randomization properly witnessed and notarized. It is the randomization-test argument that rests on an infinitesimal slice of the sample space by holding fixed everything but the design outcome. The Bayesian statistical decision theory recommends to hold the data fixed and to speculate about the still-variable parameters. In the end, the author suggests that when it comes to changing one's opinion on a scientific paradigm, the mind of a stubborn scientist, for that matter, the minds of a whole community of trained scientists, certainly does not, follow any logic.