> Simply untrue. Indeed the scientific method may be only the best we've got rather than perfect, but that still makes it the best we've got. "other sources of

> Simply untrue. Indeed the scientific method may be only the best we've got rather than perfect, but that still makes it the best we've got. "other sources of knowledge" - like what, mysticism? are less useful. I don't understand how people compare the scientific method with what, mysticism? Scenario 1: At a small school, there is this school topper, say Foo. He is nothing extra-ordinary, scores 70-80% on an average, sometimes relies on rote memorization... And there is this other boy, Bar, who didn't enroll in the school, is drunk whole day, and can often be found in the drain marinating in piss, vomit and shit. How in the fucking fuck Foo being not perfect grant credibility to Bar? Scenario 2: Lance Armstrong, 7 times winner of Tour De France, is involved in a doping controversy again. Superb. Since Lance Armstrong might have used performance enhancement drugs, I demand his medals be transferred to me, because somehow that makes me equally credible. Modern medicine is the ordinary school topper Foo or Lance Armstrong, and alternate medicine is the boy who is marinating in the gutter. Same goes for scientific methods vs spirituality, mysticism et al. As they put it, you can add as many 0s as you like - you won't get an 1. No one claimed scientific method or modern medicine is perfect, but you have to realize finding flaws in scientific method doesn't grant credibility to your crackpot theories. Scientific method is very open to accepting flaws. See the atomic model. New information is discovered, existing theories are refuted. You can't come in and say since you keep changing your atomic model, my model which I heard from my grandma who heard from hers is equally valid.