RM>that may be sufficient, but may also entail some risk (It's
RM>always a risk to use something you don't understand)....
DT>Ahhh...you speak of faith here....
 
Perhaps... The process of induction, widely used in human
thought, is itself an exercise in faith, I suppose.  We have
faith that things will continue to behave as they have always 
done, without the slightest "proof" that this is a resonable
expectation.
  
The scientific method leads to understanding; it may be only 
a partial understanding, but an understanding nonetheless. 
Studies, otoh, lead to leaps in faith, since one can only
glimpse the outward appearance, not the inner structure.  I
guess the clearest analogy I can make is that a study is like 
looking at a box from the outside, or infering the nature of 
an elephant by handling it while you are blindfolded.  The
scientific method allows you to look more closely, to handle
and look inside the box, or remove the blindfold to better
appreciate the true nature of the elephant.  Despite this
closer scrutiny, one is unlikely to ever understand the
elephant sufficiently to create an elephant oneself.  The
"understanding" may never be total, but this doesn't mean
that one is no better off than one was with the blindfold on.
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * It's OS/2, Jim, but not OS/2 as we know it.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 2
---------------