Bill - what claims would you say cannot be tested by the scientific method? If any?

   You made the point which us at the crux of the disagreement.

   I needed to sit back a bit and contemplate.

   Till I realised you mwere repeating a point I'd already responded to more than once. I've already suggested that repeating thoughts ad nauseum isn't useful.

   I can,I really,really can, see with clarity your point about testing claims scientifically. You needn't think I haven't grasped what you're saying.

   No,it's not that I can't understand what you're driving at. It's just that I beg to differ with your view that whether ANY claim stands or falls by whether it satisfies scientific examination. (Please correct me if that's not what you were saying.)

For all the reasons I've already given.



   Now I see you've started a thread about cranks in which you indiscriminately (inscientifically) lump together all sorts of e.g.astrology. I agree that there are any number of cranks. I gather there were some in the field of science who have subsequently become accepted in science.

   So *daylia* and I can see th't that's that. And I feel not a little hurt that for all the arguments I've put forward about scientific uncertainty (what DO scientists do with recalcitrant data?),the limits of science etc.etc.etc. that you've shown that lack of discrimination.

   Best wishes






       Ivor