<HTML>Hi Garrett,
I do not believe we are as far apart in our thinking as my poor ability to express myself has apparently led you to believe. I would in no way state or even imply that the paradigm beliefs (the peer reviewed and accepted theories in science) should be replaced or altered by the presence of simple hypotheses (theories?). I too have no interest in a return to the Middle Ages (actually I don't think that we should even be equating what I have meant by *spirituality* to in any way reflect the religiously imposed doctrine version of spirituality of that time (what I as a non-historian *think* I understand of the time), but perhaps that is a subject worthy of a separate discussion). A "spiritually sensitive" approach to an archeological site still requires the need to *prove* the validity of the hypothesis about the site! But as to formulating the hypothesis to begin with, I am not willing to accept that one is only allowed to think within the box. I am (was) only trying to emphasize the following concept (which is my own unprovable hypothesis): naturally, some hypotheses willl arise from within the box... but that doesn't mean that one may not think outside the box (ie, to come up with ideas that differ from what one thinks one knows as the interpretation of accepted facts). And doing so requires that the "new" thoughts come from somewhere... to me, this "somewhere" is synonymous with creative thinking which I feel to possibly be of "spiritual" (as in *inspiration*; not as in "spirits" talking to someone) origin, thus my acceptance of "feelings" in the hypothesis equation. And yes, I realize how ridiculous it would be to imply that these "spiritually sensitive/feelings," derived hypotheses would bear any weight without evidence. But does that mean we dismiss "out of the box" thinking, or does it simply mean that we continue to emphasize that such thinking is only speculation/hypothesis until such proof is shown. And that present paradigm is based upon evidence that has been shown and is still believed to be accurate. And that simple logic dictates that we should hold onto what we believe we have proven until such time as the conflicting (alternate) hypothesis can be proven to seem equally or more accurately based upon (possible) new evidence.
I argue not with how science determines its paradigms (except for the apparent move away from aspiring to objectivity and acceptance of subjectivity), but with a concept that hypotheses are somehow themselves dangerous to the paradigms. Based upon the scientific process, it seems illogical to me for scientists to act as if the presence of hypotheses (no matter how bizzare or lacking in evidence) pose a threat to the paradigm! They are simply part of the process, and to me it is the scientific community's responsibility to act as their own publicists and "educate" the masses. It seems, therefore, counterproductive to me to espouse the process (scientific method), but then show a lack of faith in one's own process (that hypotheses are weighed based upon the weight of their evidence as the proof). Until I understand the concern where I would think there should be none, I then question the true motivation of those who take it too far (the need to kill the messenger when the validity of the message is unproven anyway)! That's just the way my brain (presently) works... but I am more than willing to listen to any hypotheses on where others think it is working erroneously! ;-)
Litz</HTML>
