[PatrickHenry]

"No scientific theory has ever explained all the phenomena that fall within its domain."

Okay, but compared to what other kind of "theory" that explains the phenomena better? Astrology? The Olympian gods? Genesis? Taoism? You get the picture.

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: su·per·sti·tion
Pronunciation: "sü-p&r-'sti-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English supersticion, from Middle French, from Latin superstition-, superstitio, from superstit-, superstes standing over (as witness or survivor), from super- + stare to stand -- more at STAND
Date: 13th century
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

[forsnax5]

Okay, but compared to what other kind of "theory" that explains the phenomena better? Astrology? The Olympian gods? Genesis? Taoism? You get the picture.

I wasn't intending to make any such comparisons. That statement just appealed to me as a "universal disclaimer" that could be placed at the beginning of ANY science book.

One of the favorite statements of the anti-science types is that, since one or another particular theory doesn't explain EVERYTHING about a particular subject, then it's no good at all. The "universal disclaimer" simply points out that such logic doesn't work anywhere.

[webber]

Yeh, we get the picture, but it appears your brainwashed ganglia hasn't got it yet, BUT YOU WILL, I promise you, you will.