> There should always remain a sharp dividing line between non-scientific/scientific and for good reason. That is a patronizing statement. If science can't def

> There should always remain a sharp dividing line between non-scientific/scientific and for good reason. That is a patronizing statement. If science can't defend itself then we're more screwed than we thought. Truth exists outside of Science (to state otherwise would not be a scientific statement, thus a contradiction). That leaves room for crack pot theories to potentially have truth in them. To bar them or dismiss them based off personal bias is crime against healthy intellectual discourse. Who is imposing irrational beliefs on whom? That is where the sharp dividing line should be drawn.