Posted: Nov 16, 2010 11:33 am
Weaver wrote: ... but that doesn't mean it isn't pointless to even discuss it, without at least a hypothesized mechanism of action to make the possibility within the realm of reality.
darwin2,
Weaver made a key statement here: "hypothesized mechanism". The fact that a claim can not be absolutely proved to be false does not make the hypothesis that it is true scientific. To make make it scientific you must either provide a hypothetical mechanism that can be tested, or provide a method of testing the claim itself. Merely claiming a lack of proof is scientific is in itself silly. So hypothesize away... just drop the lack of evidence as meaning anything one way or the other scientifically.
That, my man, IS the "correct scientific approach" per the OP. So let's hear said scientific hypothesis...