Very true, McGrath. Read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Many major breakthroughs in science were originally felt to be "ridiculous" or "clearly impossible" because they challenged the then-prevailing paradigm.

When I was in medical school, we were told, "Ten years from now, half of what you learn here will turn out to be wrong. The only problem is, we can't tell you which half." For example, I was taught that duodenal ulcers were caused by excessive stomach acid, and the best treatment was milk and antacids and a bland diet. Now we know (for the time being, anyway!) that ulcer disease is caused by a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, and treatment should include antibiotics.

There was a time, not too long ago when case studies--what that author scoffs at as "anecdotes"--were considered a useful and reliable form of medical research. And the "double blind controlled study" doesn't always give you the right answer--it often depends on whether you're asking the right question. The problem with those "rules" is that we don't know which ones are going to prove useful, and which will turn out to be junk. Ain't life interesting!

Aloha,
Mark