Dear Lord Shandor,

No, I've stated many times in other postings that I do not believe science
is "truth." I use that quote from Christ in the same spirit that he gave
it: What is true and worth keeping will set people free and not bind them;
what binds people is not true and should be let go. I believe science
offers us a method to discern things which can be objectively quantified
and qualified as being "true," and it is certainly effective in weeding
out things which are "not-so-true." It is a tool toward an end, not the
end in itself. The end is true freedom. The end is truth.

You say that anyone can develop "paranormal abilities" as easily as they
can develop perfect pitch. On what basis do you make this claim? I can
show you dozens of published studies which document (scientifically) the
effectiveness of methods which teach perfect pitch. Can you show me even
one study which does the same for paranormal abilities? Please, I would
very much appreciate reading such a study.

Quantum mechanics, the cornerstone of our current scientific understanding
of the atomic and sub-atomic world, is not very logical, yet it is
scientifically validated. A great physicist, Richard Feynman, once said
if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't really.
Something can be very illogical, and yet be scientifically validated.
Something can also be very illogical and NOT be scientifically validated.
The question is not whether something is logical or not, but whether it
can be objectively validated. If yes, we keep it as "true;" if not, we
keep working on it. I see no problem with this approach, and I wonder
what is it that you find so unpleasant about it.

We as scientists surely do appreciate all that we don't know. In fact, it
was Einstein who said that knowledge is like an expanding sphere of light
in an ocean of darkness ... the more we know, the larger the sphere
becomes, but at the same time, the greater is the surface area of the
sphere that touches the darkness outside of it. The more we know, the
more we know that we don't know. But this does not invalidate what we
already DO know, and as the sphere grows ever larger, the rate at which
the volume of the sphere grows exceeds the rate at which the surface area
grows. Yes, we don't know a lot, but we also do know a lot, and it would
be unwise to throw away what we do know.

I'm trying to discern your higher purpose in these attacks against science
and scientists. Thus far, I've found your arguments to be based on
passion, not substance. Please state clearly next time what agenda you
are so attached to, that you are willing to forgo rational, objective
thinking. When you attack science and scientists, you are attacking the
structure and people whose purpose is to prevent us from fooling ourselves
and others. Why be so vehemently opposed to us? I'm trying to understand
where you are coming from.

All the best,

HF