--- On Wed, 4/15/09, J. Colaco < jc> <cola...@gmail.com> wrote: > >However, would you not agree that, the evidence must be rested and >evaluated >by scientific methods and not on the basis of mere anecdotal >evidence. >
The problem is Fr. Ivo's idea of the scientific method is not the same as that practiced by scientists. For him anything that is printed in black and white in some book is scientific, as long as he likes what it says. Anything that a historian or a historical person claims to be an observation is by definition scientific from his standpoint, provided it does not contradict his beliefs. If Samuel Hahnemann or some other homeopath claims that his method is scientific then scientific it is for Fr. Ivo. If a scientist tells him that it is not, and demonstrates and explains why it is not, then he dismisses it because he is unaccustomed to rejecting any of his beliefs, or to following even a simple scientific argument against it. This thing that comes natural to a student of science is not his cup of tea. For example, he won't be able to rationally and substantively appreciate or rebut the following position paper on Homeopathy by the National Council Against Health Fraud: http://www.ncahf.org/pp/homeop.html#recommendations He has no clue that the scientific method requires that observations be reproduced by others, be confirmed by different independent and objective means, be discarded if falsified, and make sense in the context of the rest of science. In short, Fr. Ivo has created his own special imaginary definition of science and the scientific method, which is not limited to natural phenomena and this matter and energy universe, but extends to mystical realms and supernatural vistas. Moreover, it is dictated by his own likes and dislikes. It is not science that any regular scientist or student of science can recognize. Cheers, Santosh
