Plus, I was claiming careful SCIENTIFIC-MINDEDNESS.

And not intending to lord it over some of you, but when certain people lost trees for forests and forests for trees at given points in an argument, I pointed it out.

Which is about UNDERSTANDING HYPOTHESES. And that is the LEAST understood by most "scientist" types! Ha ha.

Scientific hypotheses are not mere notions, but they start that way. They are not mere pre-set conclusions but they are temporary conclusions, to work back from. And they require rigour not only of emotions -- when faced with an hypothesis (or evidence for it) which one finds ridiculous or distasteful -- but of method, which means as much rigour in not only physical exactitude, NO, but also mental clarity on PLACEMENTS the same things have within this or that hypothesis, for COMPARISON of the hypotheses with each other.

Most scientist-types think up an hypothesis and set out to rigourously test FOR it. But they often do not really train, most of them, fully, in what they must consider philosophically speaking: the totality of their hypothesis, and ALL ramifications that appear, for it AND competing hypotheses.


I was not claiming superior knowledge of all mechanics.

Of course.