Dov writes;

> I feel embarassed and uneasy and offer my sincerest apologies.

Actually I thought you brought up an interesting question when your
wrote,

> Now, investigating and studying a subject in an "orderly scientific"
> manner does not make it a worthy "scientific" target nor gives it a
> "scientific" value.

This strikes me as so clearly true that I get confused.  It suggests
that many if not most problems studied -- no matter how
methodologically pure the procedure, no matter how brilliant the
resulting logic, no matter how vitally important to the well being of
mankind the answers may be  -- are not scientific problems.  (This
position seems bolstered by the fact that most people in the world
are not scientists, yet problem solving is the stuff of most productive
human activity.)  These other studies may have social value,
economic value, aesthetic value,  political value and maybe
religious value, but no scientific value.  So what is it that gives a
particular problem it's scientific worth?  Who makes these calls and
what standards do they use do do it?  Can the scientific worth of a
problem be determined by scientific method?

Lots of questions.
--
                Simon

[log in to unmask]             http://loris.net