In article , Nick Maclaren
writes

It would be nice to find a serious scientific analysis of this,
rather than seeing yet another repetition of the old stories that
have been passed around for centuries. Regrettably, professional
scientists are no more immune to making that mistake than anyone
else :-(

Are you sure you mean that Nick?

Can you clarify what you understood me to say? I meant what I
understood my statement to say.

What your statement says is indisputable. I understand it to imply that
scientific analysis is not necessarily any more accurate or reliable
than non-scientific analysis. Is that what you intended it to imply?
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.