Zd,
What I meant to say and did not very clearly perhaps is that the fact that science and engineering is limited is not sufficient to justify trying things that cannot be explained because the odds of success applying engineering principles and techniques that are well supported scientifically are fairly high while the odds of success applying those that cannot are orders of magnitude less.
So the only rational approach is to first make sure one addresses principles thoroughly first. That alone can be quite an undertaking!
I always question anyone who dwells or is biased towards merits of highly unsubstantiated claims. That should be maybe 10% or less of the overall conversation, not the whole story itself.
What I meant to say and did not very clearly perhaps is that the fact that science and engineering is limited is not sufficient to justify trying things that cannot be explained because the odds of success applying engineering principles and techniques that are well supported scientifically are fairly high while the odds of success applying those that cannot are orders of magnitude less.
So the only rational approach is to first make sure one addresses principles thoroughly first. That alone can be quite an undertaking!
I always question anyone who dwells or is biased towards merits of highly unsubstantiated claims. That should be maybe 10% or less of the overall conversation, not the whole story itself.

