I have no trouble with the scientific method, in fact I'm a science fanboy. I do maintain some discomfort with your <edit: my interpretation of your> stance tho

I have no trouble with the scientific method, in fact I'm a science fanboy. I do maintain some discomfort with your <edit: my interpretation of your> stance though. I hope my first point doesn't come across as nitpicking - it's not meant to. I bring it up because it seems to be the primary way that people who think they understand science, but don't, perceive science. It is that you seem to value things that can be proven true. Nothing in science can be proven true - that's why it's so uncomfortable to so many people, and in fact is why the scientific method was such an epistemological break from the past. All we can do is disprove things. My problem with holistic medicine or chakras or chi isn't that dissection hasn't found evidence. It's that the theory/model/worldview isn't formulated in a way that can be falsified and therefore the the views have no meaning in a scientific context. Note that I didn't say they were false from a scientist's view. They simply aren't meaningful - they're content free. A scientist wouldn't actually say they're true or false: a scientist would say that science has nothing to say about them. The second issue I have with your position is related to the first point but slightly different: I think it's incorrect to label as false models that have no evidence. For example, say a holistic medicine practitioner relents and formulates one of his practices in a falsifiable way. Tests are done and no beneficial effect is shown. I think the appropriate response is that the model is unlikely to be true, not that the model is false. We simply haven't disproved the null hypothesis yet - that's not to say it won't or can't be done. The scientific method just adds 9s to the certainty. It is never certain. In short, a scientist is profoundly and radically humble.