Oh, you should certainly have faith in everything science tells you.
And you make very much a fatal flaw here. "Science" says nothing. Self-described scientists report results. They can be as corrupt as a prophet who claims God tells him to collect money and women from amongst his flock.
AmishDude: I'm saying faith in the scientific method is a faith. You must accept its validity in order to use it. (This does not address the flaws in the method, which are most egregious in so-called junk science. Of course, these flaws can be considered part of the method itself.)
Quark2005: What are the 'flaws' in the scientific method?
AmishDude: What aren't the flaws?
Me: Does it do anything right? Why should we believe anything science says?
AmishDude: Well, my area requires proof so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking.
Me: So you don't have an answer to my questions.
AmishDude: Oh, you should certainly have faith in everything science tells you. And you make very much a fatal flaw here. "Science" says nothing. Self-described scientists report results. They can be as corrupt as a prophet who claims God tells him to collect money and women from amongst his flock.
That's, in general, called not answering the question, being evasive, attempting to distance responses as far down the thread as possible from where the original question was asked, etc. In this specific case it means you are wasting my time because you have nothing of substance to say. I'm inclined to conclude you're just trolling for amusement.
I wonder what the percentage of corrupt preachers is compared to the percentage of corrupt scientists.