I didn't intend to suggest imy examples were beyond science, shimrod. I was trying to explain why Mencken's question was a bit of a straw man, since it was trying to challenge a way of looking at things that is not really 'how it is'. I don't object to any idea being challenged, but it does not do to say how People 'must' see things and then attack that without actually checking whether they do see it like that in the first place.