[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, taking a theory as true until it is disproved forms the very basis of science. In its strictest sense science admits to everything that has not been disproved.
Naturally, scientists would tend to dismiss any theory for which there is no real evidence and which does not accord with other accepted theories, but pushed to a decision a true scientist would ultimately admit that unless a given theory can be disproved it cannot be entirely dismissed.

In a sense, this forms one of the biggest stumbling blocks for scientists when debating about God, paranormal occurrences, supernatural abilities, etc. A true scientist realizes that most of these claims cannot, fundamentally, be disproved and, as a result, will not, in good conscience, simply say they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how I understood science might be. Evidently, we have disagreement here on the board. You guys sort it out and let me know if science agrees with the above or the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]


However, he/she will discount them on the basis that there is virtually no substantial, repeatable evidence for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I think we can say we have enough ‘repeatable evidence” : Every single thought of every person in the history of the world (and still counting). (I know my response isn't what you actually said. Just taking lliberties with your statement for rhetorical humor.)

[ QUOTE ]
However, despite claims to the contrary, this basic tenet does mean that science is actually the most open minded discipline.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, not totally open minded?