"And you did not see the invitation for you to chime in with your own definition? "
I was under the impression I was doing the "scientist" thing and starting off with an assumption.
And as for "not in evidence"- I'd rather have Truth than musings of labcoats that can't get laid. (and by "can't get laid," I am implying that they are so out of touch with the real world that they couldn't operate in the natural capacity most of us do.)
As to the first part of your statement, how do you verify the "Truth" is what it says it is? Or, do you simply accept it as is?
As to the second part of your statement, it's obvious the contempt in which you hold folks that work in the scientific disciplines. It is natural for those of limited intellect to hate and be distrustful of those who show themselves to be smarter, more successful or more capable. Hence the popularity of "soak the wealthy" tax schemes and the time-honored physical abuse of "nerds."
Nice touch. I'm sure it will add heaps to your treasure in Heaven.