on the limits of the invocation of scientific protocols

To say there is a god 
because three zillion people claim 
such an undefinable entity exists
is evidence that three zillion people 
would like this to be true. 
Here there is no science 
that may be invoked 
beyond socio-psychology.
 
That a mere thousand claim 
they gave up tomatoes 
and had fewer and milder 
arthritic pains is not science
either…due to the absence of 
control groups and a bunch of other 
stuff you can look up for yourself — 
It is, nonetheless, legitimate evidence
Indeed, when three or four thousand 
make the same claim it is starting 
to look less and less anecdotal 
in the evidence department
and more and more like 
something worth trying 
when you can no longer 
move your fingers –
howevermuch 
you dote on 
tomatoes.
 
 
 
 
 
hearing that there is no scientific evidence to back up a claim…is not to say that there is no evidence at all…IF (and it’s an important if) some aspect of objective reality is at issue. Just thought you should keep that in mind as, on occasion, (pure/theoretical)science and skepticism may have limited relevance.  
.
 

.

.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s