[Coyoteman]

What you do isn't science. It's far too speculative. What hypotheses you present are merely interesting--not ultimately important to your fellow man. Fancy butters no parsnips. Fairy tales don't make the buildings to stand or the antibiotics to kill bugs--double-blind studies and calibrations do.

Like I said, you're just anti-science. You just can't help but to show it with statements like this.

(ps. And what exactly is it that I do that is so unscientific?)

[Mamzelle]

You also are not a very interesting correspondent. "You're anti-science"--said now, twice. I don't think you even know what your assertions are, or what you want them to be. You need to go back to rhetoric class.

Do you wish to advance the point that the abstraction of Science is holy and wonderful? Well, do so. "You're anti-science" goes nowhere.

Science is not finding some evidence and conjuring some plausible storyline to explain it-- until a different evidence calls for a new story. That is not science--just conjecture. You know what science is by the results it brings, by the fruits.

Cosmologists write a good tale, but it is the engineer who tests the physics and math of sending up a craft going 40Kmph over 100Mmiles into space, to flick some dust off a comet going 100Kmph. His rear is on the line. Everything he does can be tested, examined, challenged and demonstrated.

Science is reproducible. Science has to have measures which are reliable--if you are testing a chemical substance in a spectrophotometer, it must be calibrated to give a standard response from a standard sample. Science should have double blind studies to filter out wishful thinking and placebo effects.

Archeologists do things like dig up gravesites of neandertals, find some pollen and engage in playful fancy about how this was a ritualistic funeral with flowers, etc. And why not? No one can say them nay. They can say anything they want. No one can prove otherwise, only create an opposing fancy.

Good stories. Bad science.