> It sounds like you don't know what the scientific method is?
I take from that response that you just assume that the scientific method was important but don't know why. I will posit that is because it wasn't as important as you assume.
> tend to be
What number of exceptions would there need to be before you accepted that the entire premise was wrong?
I conclude you are just being argumentative.
How did you tell the difference between being right while facing an obstinate opponent, and being argumentative?