@Lord J: I'm at the hospital right now (and probably will be for a few more days), so I'll be brief.
so far as what we've seen there hasn't been a single concept which was entirely unreliable or false
It means exactly what I said.
For instance, the story of Spiderman is entirely fiction, and as with every fiction everybody knows this shit isn't real. Then some kid comes by telling scientists (with no evidence whatsoever) that the concept of Spiderman IS possible in real life. One thing he got wrong is that radioactive spiders don't give you superpowers, but just because it is false doesn't mean the
concept in itself is entirely false or unreliable. You see, genetic mutation/fusion and having the powers of a spider fused with a human is possible, but requires a much tedious, careful and methodical science.
It's called Gene Splicing, and human experiments with that is illegal, but has been successful with animals (look up "Humster").
And it's not just with this concept; in the history of science we've all been baffled when some of the most ridiculous ideas have been accomplished by taking a different route or method, creating useful inventions and discoveries in its wake. And this has all been the result of "Limited Skepticism", that is rejecting something without evidence, but not rejecting the possibility of its existence. And this kind of thought has saved thousands of soldiers even in a battlefield when it was time to take quick, intelligent decisions.
"I can't prove my god exists, but YOU can't prove it DOESN'T exist!"
You see, that's something I'd like to call an "Opposing Balance". Basically, when two sides are neutral about their own beliefs, when one side says something contradictory about the other the other would run the opposite direction finding a blank check to do the same. Meaning, if you reject an idea if it has no evidence, they will reject your rejection because you have no opposing evidence either. But this is flawed in one way.
You see, that's a flawed method of doing things. When neither sides have evidence doesn't mean that the opposing are wrong by default; it's common sense that when neither side has evidence the concept remains in "Suspended Mode" where the credibility remains neither with one party nor the other, but remains as a "possibility". Some folks (both religious, atheistic, or concerning any belief pertaining to a completely different area, such as a grocery store's product price) would argue that, for instance, if there's no evidence there isn't any Jack the Ripper means there IS a Jack the Ripper, or there's no evidence there is a Donut thus Donut does not exist, is actually a flawed way of getting about things. Remember the "Suspended Mode". Possibility is there to be exploited, to EARN it, not to blindly claim it.
That said, when you have no intention of telling people what to do, you're still free to muse on your own understandings and believe what you want to believe, even if it means you think there's a Boogie Man under your bed. You're obviously not going to agree with me on this, but I've seen more positive results than negative in these cases. Hehe, even here at the hospital.
