I have been shaking my head sadly reading some of the skewed opinions about science and the scientific method.

*Science*, properly done, is fine --*Scientists* are often dishonest, self-serving and careless with their reasoning, just like some theologians and dabblers in the occult and . The scientific method, properly understood and applied, does approach truth and fact. Properly applied, it MUST give us new and different answers as we learn more. Phlogiston was once a pretty good idea, as was Lamark's theory of the inheritance of acquired charistics, but both have given way to more enlightened theories! And no doubt even these will be refined. This is a FEATURE, not a problem!

   Those whose ideas of 'faith' and 'belief' includes the notion that not being subject to proof is a virtue and somehow makes them exempt from criticism are kidding themselves. They stamp the strangest ideas with the word 'valid', without asking what 'valid' means, and how, if at all, it is related to 'true'. (No, not YOU, of course, YOU wouldn't hold any REALLY silly beliefs like those poor souls who committed group suicide at the approach of the comet!)

Can those of you who believe in astrology, psychic healing, alternative medicine, witchcraft & magic, Tarot, Ouija boards, demonic possession, alien landings, telepathy, Phrenology, Palmistry, reincarnation, and various versions of spiritual forces manifested by various Messiahs and Prophets really say that your claims are just as good as those of properly done science?

Or, look at the list above....do YOU believe in ALL of those? And why not? If Tarot is 'valid', why not ghosts? If they are not subject to the usual tests and scrutiny demanded by good science, then why exclude any of them? One of the tenets of logic is that "from a false premise, anything follows", but I see so many claims that, when examined, presuppose accepting something at the beginning that is, by definition, not testable. THEN the claimant will turn around and assert that "science is no better, because it is constantly having to change its theories and revise its answers"....as if the two situations were comparable! *sigh*

I realize I sound like I'm trying to assert that none of the more 'esoteric' notions I mentioned can be true, but this is not what I'm getting at.....I just bristle at those who need to put down science in order to justify their own NON-scentific ideas.

Sure, some of those arcane things I don't believe in might be true/possible/valid...call me when you can give me some idea of HOW they can work...and if I experience any of them, I'll call YOU with my best guess as to what happened, and strive for some sort of repeatibility and external verification before I state that it 'really' happened. I am aware of the amazing complexity of the human brain, and I know that it is certainly possible to have feelings and 'experiences' and 'memories' that may have been created internally by synapses firing in funny ways. (...like dreams of your great-aunt on a blue unicycle throwing marshmallows at chimps!)

We have had some excellent discussion on this thread, part of which really pointed out the difficulties in agreeing on the language and terminology needed to even debate the issues. I'd hate to see come down again to just a lot of assertions that "I know what I know". Believe what you will, just don't knock science by pointing at 'some' bad scientists.