Dear Mr. Andrew,

Thank you kindly for your thoughtful response. I'm going to go slightly off of the deep end here so please indulge me: I believe that the scientific method subconsciously functions in a dialectical manner. This may be based on a foible of human consciousness that perceives antimonies or either/or-s more easily than it can take in the big picture (e.g. Pollock and the other artists mentioned). When I propose a thesis such as "It's sunny" and you add "Yeah, but it will rain later" we may arrive at an accurate representation of reality - our synthesized ideas of "It's sunny but will rain later" but there's something psychologically corrupt about the WAY we arrived at it. Regarding scientific studies, I was referring to one of Daniel Schmactenberger's brilliant podcasts wherein he said that over 50% of scientific studies are debunked within 5 years. I haven't researched this; I just have my own experience as a psychotherapist and have to listen to patients reciting their diagnoses as if they are asking me to pass the bread. I appreciate that you understand that science is a system just as feudalism was a system and arranged marriage was a system. Like fish, it is difficult for us to perceive the systems in which we swim. And of course, this particular system, created atomic bombs and gas chambers so we need to proceed with caution.

Thank you again for your comment!

Best regards,

Ira Israel