In article ,
(Zeb Glittering) wrote:
In article ,

says...

If you can't give three examples, then you aren't matching your
hypothesis to reality. This is what science does. It's called
experiment that is reproducible.


Right at the beginning, I indicated that I was giving a philosophical answer
to a philosophical question.

So you did do the first step of the Scientific Method and sorted
out that it couldn't be studied using this flavor of thinking.

..At the end, I said why I thought it may be of
use. I admitted that I wasn't saying very much, but that's very different
from
saying nothing at all.

Here is where you goofed. You continued on and insisted that
other people should be able to examine the notion even after
you rejected it as a viable subject to study using the
Scientific Method. Do you see the problem with this?

Of course I haven't matched my hypnothesis to reality. Wasn't it clear that I
was communicating a hunch for which I feel a strong conviction?

You are allowing your strong conviction govern your conclusions.
This is not science; it is religion. The first step of the
Scientific Method is to sort out what can be tested. If it
can't be tested objectively, it isn't science.

..It doesn't
necessary follow that I have the skills of education to go about testing that
hypothesis.

You learn how to think analytically. This removes the tendency of
wishful thinking. Its purpose is to sort out what can be studied
using the Scientific Method and what cannot be studied using
that flavor of thinking.

.. It doesn't necessarily mean that the idea is worthless.

It is not productive _within the context of a scientific study_.
It may be productive in another area.

Imaging stuff is lots of fun. Sorting out what is useful
within a particular discipline is more fun. Making the
1 idea out of 10,000+ work is the best fun.

/BAH