BBW sounding Presuppositionalist-esque

I guess its agreed that B. B. Warfield has a strongly rational(ist?) evidentialist apologetic and Hofecker says "certainly these few words don't make Warfeild a presuppositionalist" but they seen a pretty big hint in that direction:

What is a fact that is wholly separated from what is here called "dogma"? If doctrines which stand entirely out of relation to facts are myths, lies [then] facts which have no connection with what we call doctrine could have no meaning to us whatsoever. It is what we call doctrine which gives all their significance to facts. A fact without doctrine is simply a fact not understood. That intellectual element brought by the mind to the contemplation of facts, which we call "doctrine," "theory," is the condition of any proper comprehension of facts.... so closely welded are these intellectual elements - those elements of previous knowledge, or of knowledge derived from other sources - to facts as taken up into our minds in the complex act of appreciation, that possibly we have ordinarily failed to separate them, and consequently, in our worship of what we call so fluently "the naked facts," have very little considered what a bare fact is, and what little meaning it could have for us.

Hoekkecker in Wells, David F., Reformed Theology in America: A History of its Modern Development (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1985) p80, citing Warfield, Shorter Writings, 2:230