"several thousand years"....yes, I understand that. And we know these are accurate observations how? Are they replicable?


"I don't think our dispute is semantic. I think it's about whether the scientific method is the only appropriate method of acquiring knowledge."
    hmmmm...we'd have to sit and compare some notions on that idea. I don't even agree with the phrase "acquiring knowlege" as used in that sentence. It is at least partly semantic if we found we didn't agree that acquiring knowlege is the same as 'collecting data' and/or 'observation and correlation' that you refer to.

Since you like to consider yourself agnostic about 'influence' and 'prediction'- (a good sign.. *grin*), I suppose my next direction of inquiry would be into the value and accuracy of correlation and the process of extracting really useful information that went beyond generalities that applied to almost anyone. To my mind, it gets really slippery and fuzzy there, and it is there where some quite detailed critiques have claimed the 'correlation' breaks down.

Yes...maybe enough for now, as it takes a lot of careful phrasing and explication for either of us to present an explanation that is neither ambiguous nor equivocal.