Sorry I'm dense, but I'm still not sure what it is I am side-stepping. I'll take a guess if you agree to forgive me if I am not answering the actual question.

My 01/12/07 post was a response to:

"The hardest flaws for scientists to spot are those they all share."

I agree that if all people in a particular group think alike, there will be things outside of their way of thinking that they will be completely unaware of. However, as I've stated before, the scientific method, unlike any (?) other way of thinking, is self-correcting. Science takes absolutely nothing on faith. Nothing is ever proven beyond all doubt. Any theory, proposal, or even "fact" can be demolished by the next well-designed test. In fact, the best route to lasting fame (and funding!) is to upset an "established" idea.

So, the idea that scientists are in some way mental lemmings doesn't make sense to me. They love to pick at each others ideas, looking for the flaw.

But, it's not just about bashing people's ideas or tearing things down. Science is used for testing specific claims. I (and many scientists) agree with Ivor that there are questions that science cannot answer (e.g. "why are we here?"). There is no test that can answer that question. But if someone asks "can an astrologer accurately describe a person knowing only their birth date, time, place and gender?", that specific claim can be tested. And if the test method and results are peer-reviewed or made public, other scientists will not simply accept the results - they will try to spot the flaw in the method.

So, I'm not sure what is the flaw that all scientists share that would cause them to inappropriately accept or reject an invalid test of a specific claim (which, to reiterate, is all that science can do).

Gave it my best. Sorry if I still miss the point.