[lightworker888]

Just took a quick glance at Bad Science and the concern I had was that it seems to be predicated on the presupposition that if it can't be shown to be valid through a scientific means, then it's validity is questionable.

Somehow that seems very limiting to me, as there are so many things that we know to be useful and "working" that may not yet be scientifically "proven" and it seems a shame that so many people are dissuaded from finding out for themselves what might work.

I find that if something "feels" useful to me, then it is often worth trying out regardless of it's "scientific" validity. Homeopathy and Flower Essences are a good case in point and have "proven" themselves to me and many others to be most useful in many cases, even for my dogs. I hate to think of where I'd be if I hadn't had arnica and rescue remedy in my purse when I fell down hit my knees, wrists, shoulder, and head in Eustis. Didn't even get a bruising, but it was a foolish way to find out that at least I don't have Osteo!

Maybe we haven't created the machinery or techniques yet to measure and/or test the "older" methods that have been around longer than the allopathic approach. JMHO


LW888