The problem is, what he heralds as the strength of science is also its greatest weakness. Assuming things don't exist until they are proved is a faulty assumption in many cases. This is why so many things are discovered by accident. So many skeptics refuse to even listen to any idea that conflicts with the collective consensus of the scientific community, despite the scientific community being wrong about so many, many, many things in the past. I guess I've become a meta-skeptic, skeptical even of skepticism, which has somehow made me more open-minded. I would love if the scientific community could take a long, hard look at its assumptions and question them. Yes, I agree that we should focus on evidence, data that comes from experimentation. However, I have heard many scientists claim that a study/experiment "disproved" something, when it did nothing of the kind. An experiment doesn't tell you anything if it's poorly designed and contains untested assumptions, which MANY studies do. Back in college I'd read papers in high-level scientific journals and want to cry, because someone just spend 20 years and tons of money conducting a study that proves nothing, because it rested on assumptions that are simply ludicrous, and not only the authors but also peer-reviewers are oblivious. If I could do any job, I think the one I'd do best is to review methodology before experiments begin, and try to tear holes in the plan. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone would hire me because nobody thinks they need it. Sure, America is full of morons who believe stupid things, but that has led the scientific/academic community to reach a level of arrogance that is completely unjustified. In my not-humble-enough opinion, of course. Wow, sorry, didn't realize that was going to be a rant - Lo