Nicely put, and please don’t misread my intent as saying the discussion is a private one, but that the tone and tenor between two of the parties may have easily enough been misconstrued as in a different context. I can’t speak for Lana myself, but if she is after all these tens of thousands of words plus a brief stab at co-authorship which both of us seem to think was a mild success, still trying to win me over to her more scientific approach (which I personally find holes in wide enough to drive a truck through but she’s also a pal), then maybe she enjoys the futility of that for its own sake.
And you also misconstrue just how I view science. I see people treating fact and truth themselves as if these were science. They are not. Science is the ART of trying to get at them, practiced by people, who have prejudices, politics, careers, marriages and even (brace yourself) faith influencing how they go about doing that.
And don’t think for a second, and I doubt you do, that in the Holy Name of Science, peer-reviewed and widely praised, a whole lot of utter bunk isn’t released on the world as self-evident truth. Maybe you’re better at sorting the one from the other, but some litany intoned at the altar of Science Its Ownself doesn’t get that done for me.
For me it is simple: a true thing, is a true thing. It matters little to me how this is established, but more the fact that if it is not true, it won’t take science to prove it. I know full well, for instance, it took a whole lot of science to design, perfect, market and regulate the plumbing systems of the world, most of which is way over my hick head.
But damned if a leak, isn’t a leak, and has to be fixed. Ain’t no whole lotta science to figgerin that one out.