I've been spending time in other ways in other places and was turned on to this essay
on the scientific method. I read the following:
Next, one must test the hypothesis before it is corroborated and given any real validity. There are two ways to do this. First, one can conduct an experiment. This is often presented in science textbooks as the only way to test hypotheses in science, but a little reflection will show that many natural problems are not amenable to experimentation, such as questions about stars, galaxies, mountain formation, the formation of the solar system, ancient evolutionary events, and so forth. The second way to test a hypothesis is to make further observations. Every hypothesis has consequences and makes certain predictions about the phenomenon or process under investigation. Using logic and empirical evidence, one can test the hypothesis by examining how successful the predictions are, that is, how well the predictions and consequences agree with new data, further insights, new patterns, and perhaps with models.
It reminded me a debate in either Fred's blog
or Leonidas's blog
that linked to an article that said the only way to test global warming hypotheses was with an experiment, that models were invalid. I think this quote from the same article linked
to above is relevant:
Most individuals would rather believe something is true because they feel it is true, hope it is true, or wish it were true, rather than deny their emotions and accept that their beliefs are false.
P.S. I'm in a serious relationship, completely depression free, and mostly paranoia/anxiety free. It's great to be back.