Results From A Given Approach Are "facts"

Arguments Hardly Affect The Faithful- Their Beliefs Have An Entirely Different Foundation.

All Religion May Be Centered Around A Generally Good Idea, However, This Has Not Stopped Its Adherents From Acting Like Bastards.

Experience Arises Together With Theoretical Assumptions Not Before Them, And An Experience Without Theory Is Just As Incomprehensible As Is (allegedly) A Theory Without Experience.

One Might Get The Impression That I Recommend A New Methodology Which Replaces Induction By Counterinduction And Uses A Multiplicity Of Theories, Metaphysical Views, Fairy Tales, Instead Of The Customary Pair Theory/observation. This Impression Would Certainly Be Mistaken. My Intention Is Not To Replace One Set Of General Rules By Another Such Set: My Intention Is Rather To Convince The Reader That All Methodologies, Even The Most Obvious Ones, Have Their Limits.

There Is No "scientific Worldview" Just As There Is No Uniform Enterprise "science" - Except In The Minds Of Metaphysicians, School Masters, And Scientists Blinded By The Achievements Of Their Own Particular Niche... There Is No Objective Principle That Could Direct Us Away From The Supermarket "religion" Or The Supermarket "art" Toward The More Modern, And Much More Expensive Supermarket "science." Besides, The Search For Such Guidance Would Be In Conflict With The Idea Of Individual Responsibility Which Allegedly Is An Important Ingredient Of A "rational" Or Scientific Age.