Ah, C'mon, LH- your example is absurd. What you're describing is not scientific methodology at all. Its NOT logic, impeccible or otherwise, but entirely fallacious and a violation of every tenet of proper scientific inquiry. All it demonstrates is a bogus thesis.

Of course succeding generations of scientists revise update and annotate earlier work- that's how knowledge accmulates. That doesn't make the METHOD suspect.

Then if people usually see exactly what they want to see...what their cultural norms have prepared them to see. If they don't believe in something, they usually don't see it either...

If you think about this for a moment, you'll see this negates your whole argument. If people want to see UFO's, they'll see 'em even if there is a much more mundane and practical ecplanation for them.

No?

Best, Greg