Thanks for your reply.

You say that you don’t encourage me to walk a different path. Have I remembered this correctly? Was it not you who some time ago, having criticised the content of one particular article, wrote “I strongly advise you to take up some form of meditation”? As if that might help me to clear up my errors. (This was a long time ago, so it might have been someone else, perhaps TheseEyesGod. But I don’t think so. You seem to be the most likely candidate.)

I’m afraid that I don’t accept the concepts of ‘correct science’ or ‘valid science’ or ‘confirmed knowledge’. As far as I can see, there is only the best possible science we can come up with, given our current understanding. This can only ever be provisional and limited, although apparently convincing at any given epoch. Hence the need to sometimes think outside the box.

Can you give me an example of something you consider undeniably and absolutely correct science? I assume we’re not including mathematical formulae in this discussion, so preferably from the realm of biology, rather than chemistry, which is well established. I obviously accept the truth of the basic laws of physics, e.g. Ohm’s Law. But that isn’t the type of thing we are discussing.