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.  

.

 

.

.