> The (violently!) remark suggests you won’t change your mind.

It does, but the suggestion is wrong. That I tend to violently defend certain of my views doesn’t mean I won’t change my mind about them.

> Einstein actually perfomd “thought experiments.”

Sure, but I was referring to physical experiments.

> Mathematical proofs and theoretical physics are different, but in the fields of biological and physical science, the only way to confirm a theory is through experimentation.

That would depend on your definition of experiment. I claim that formal experiments are often unneeded, and by “experiment,” I mean formal physical experiment. Not that such experiments are not often extremely useful, and in some cases necessary. But, just as one can construct a scientific account of something without experiments by basing it on one’s experience of the past, and one’s thoughts about that, one can confirm a hypothesis (which is different from a scientific account) by checking it against the past and thinking about it. Also by further investigation, which is similar to experimentation but not really experimentation, for me. For instance, I hypothesize certain brain mechanisms. One needn’t set up an experiment to find out if they exist, one need only keep investigating the brain physically, or even research old investigations. I admit that this is hair-splitting. Obviously, if your scientific account is of something not available to normal sensory experience, you need to experiment or do something close to it to validate it.

In many fields, particularly what you might call macroscopic psychology, the experiments have been done in the real world. We don’t have to do a formal experiment to find out if children will go to a man handing out free ice cream cones on a hot day or to a man handing out religious pamphlets.

> And the development of penicillin, vaccines and cancer chemotherapy, to name a few, are indeed significant. Regarding your football example, you actually followed the scientific method by hypothesizing that men get excited, testing that hypothesis by reviewing previous data and using observable criteria (instead of BP) to measure excitement (eg., any memory of a game where men stood up and cheered).

Right. No formal experimentation necessary. Empirical knowledge necessary.

thanks for your response, Bob

But thanks for the interest!

–Bob (late with this because only today finding out this blog was getting comments and how to deal with them)