There is no argueing with a 'true believer' of any paradigm...including the scientific method.

Harlan,

Tsk Tsk....The scientific method is not a belief though folk believe in it. It is essentially nuetral and relies on evaluation, logic, and empirical evidence. If the evidence doesn't corroborate the idea, then I have to reinvent the theory. If the evidence shows I am wrong, then I admit I am wrong. Science.

Belief, on the other hand, will be there, regardless of the evidence.

-B

Exactly my point.

Quote:

---

Tsk Tsk....The scientific method is not a belief though folk believe in it.

---

How can that be your point?

Don't have the time now, but I'll try to look at it later.

Harlan,

I think you misunderstand me in this regard. The actual scientific method of logically setting up double blind tests to examine an outcome of an experiment. To examine things logically is what I think is good, and objective.

The article that you have listed, I think, does not devalue the scientific method. What it instead gives is an idea upon how the cumulutive knowledge obtained by science is put forth. And how a consensus in obtained relating to this data. These paradigm shifts.

I do not think, however, it dismisses as a belief, the method of obtaining this knowledge.

-B

I seem to be unclear today. Yes. I agree with you, only pointing to material for people to think about.

Unclear...naw! Your fine. It's Friday. And that, I do believe in...is a good thing!

-B

"It's Friday. And that, I do believe in...is a good thing!"

That, if any, is an absolute fact!

I'm quite enjoying this new guy, he has very strong opinions about what's right and wrong, and he says that's Zen and us idiots don't know s**t, he's probably right about the last part