post #3 intermediate note.
The case of Case. He is definitely not your typical scientist. He is/was a practitioner with >30years experience, and as such one does not so much rely on theory but on intuition. What works and not is more in your bones and not in your head. This makes a difference, because this is not peer-reviewable, and reveals a fundamental problem of peer-reviewed scientific method: That it scraps intuition altogether and replaces it by a mechanical method of intersubjective verification, where all the intricate details are put under the rug of the method. The fight is about those accepting some sort of sublime, and those who build up knowledge up from the robust, i.e. the hard skeptics. What the hard skeptics miss, is, that their axioms -ie Occam- are on shaky ground, or more to the point: Occam does not have a foundation in 'reality'.
