Actually, Eve, I do understand that this is your definition of science. That’s why I sent you that link to the article What Science Isn’t. Your definition is romantic and wonderful in its way, and I admire it. You know I’m a flake that way. But I seriously doubt there’s a working scientist out there, and I invite any who read this to respond, who would agree with you that ravens do science. Ravens surely observe nature and learn from their observations. Single celled animals can learn to take one pathway over another when a scientist electrifies the first. If you would say the amoeba is doing science when it changes lanes to avoid a shock, I lean toward agreeing with you and let’s just call science the new name for God. It’s not a method, it’s an expression of the living force of nature observing it’s surroundings, learning and adapting. All of life is science. That’s the lay positivist thing. Its Scientific Pantheism. Which I’d be cool with. I think I would get along better with people who relate to science in a religious way if they’d just be honest about that.