Ok , then you ' ll understand my critiques . You used term ' a scientist ' which means any scientist , meaning it is a generalization that should be correct for every scientist . If you ever tried to write a scientific paper , then you know such generalizations are unacceptable unless you really went around and check every single scientist in a existence . Even then , due to impossibility of the time travel , you would have to limit yourself to the time period . Meaning there is no way you could write a statement about a scientist without using constraints in sentence . You did not . Therefore your sentence was generalization . If you ' re beginner in science , and sounds you are , get ready , comments like mine above is something you ' ll bump into at each and every conference and even at research staff meetings . Basically , be careful what are you saying . That is the reason why scientist always use moderators in their sentences , to state that their claim is not apsolute . You did made an apsolute statement . And that is automatically wrong , because all I need to do is to find one example that contradicts your statement to prove your statement wrong . Remember math . Seems like you also suffer of projection . I never said that philosophy is worthless . Use sentences and words I used if you plan to cite me . Another example that you ' re just a student who has loads and loads to learn . Reread my post to get my exact words . Arguing this topic with you is pointless , because you ' re not arguing with me , but with some projection you have of me . Do not assume what I meant , either take my words as they are or ask if you do not get the meaning . You cannot see into my head . You cannot see outside your own head .