> "Establish causes and then measure effects" is not only wrong, its non-sense. All right, so you don't understand science. It's not fatal, and you're hardly a

> "Establish causes and then measure effects" is not only wrong, its non-sense. All right, so you don't understand science. It's not fatal, and you're hardly alone. From Aristotle, through Francis Bacon, to the present, the centerpiece of science has been the establishment of causes, explanations, not merely observations and descriptions as you're suggesting. Observations often lead to the shaping of a theory, then confirmation of that theory -- that explanation -- through the prediction of phenomena not yet observed, and observations that confirm the predictions (or that falsify the theory). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Quote: "Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy)." I could provide hundreds of quotes similar to that above, but I can't repair your education in a short post. You must accept responsibility for those things you don't understand, but that you feel comfortable reciting to other people in a public show of narcissism.