I agree with everything Mark Sullivan wrote. The scientific method is the most precise way to advance knowledge. Like anything, of course, it is subject to corruption. That is a separate issue answered by publication and independent reproduction of results. However...
My problem with the scientific method is that the world "doesn't work that way." We are not deductive creatures by nature. So, as inductive thinkers, people DO approach the world with definite, if fallible, expectations. And rightly so, because no one graduated college by strict adherence to the scientific method. In other words, the Scientific Method is a tool that may be employed when specific questions must be answered, but it is not the only tool and, in many instances, it might not be the best tool. Which is to say that the criticising someone' conclusions because they weren't derived by the scientific method is rather silly. How a person arrives at a conclusion may be completely irrelevant to the truth of the matter. Perhaps Steve's off the cuff conclusions are correct. Perhaps they're not. But even the most insightful criticisms of his methodology do nothing to address the veracity of those conclusions. _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
