Swingman wrote:


Easy ... unlike "climate change", the various "States of Matter"
(which were indeed under discussion in this very newsgroup, by
woodworkers, woodworkers with science degrees, among other things,

Agreed - except that my point was that among the most elite of the
scientific minds within any discipline, there is disagreement. So - here's
these greatest of minds, with the fullness of their educations, and they
somehow do no agree on theories, and ideas. How then can a group of
woodworkers that even with their professional background (which are
generally not in that elite realm), expect to define "scientific" in any
better way? When the best of the best use "scientific" processes to defend
their positions, and find themselves in disagreement, how can this forum
hope to achieve any better? And then someone comes up with the phrase that
this is "scientific" - BS. On which side of the argument? Both sides use
science to defend their position.

and contrary to your last word above, the "S" in BS in this case
stands for "science" g) are well understood and pretty universally
"accepted science" for the past few hundred years... at least, so far.

Science is by no means understood universally. If it were, there would not
be contradictory theories within the real of scientific study. The
scientific community is in no way in complete accord. Methinks we throw
this word "scientific" around way too loosely. We tend to use it in attempt
to defend our own position with no regard to how much discord there is
within the true world of scientific discourse.


Certainly good enough to cook your dinner, steam your clams, freeze
your food, make your AC work, and put a man on the moon, among other
things.

Well - we never disagreed on the value of science. I'm only challenging the
use of the term "scientific" as thrown about here.


I'll take that degree of "scientific" acceptance any day ...

Me too - but that was not my point.

--

-Mike-