Well, before posting this next series, I want to make a few comments.When I wrote this, I intended it as more of an informational type thing to point out some of the problems associated with trying to relate studies to real world practice without targeting anyone deliberately.  At least that was my intention.  Well, as I look back on it, I realize that it was aimed at certain people.  These people are the ones who are hell-bent on not accepting any information based purely on empirical observation.  They seem to feel that if something does not have a basis in science (regardless of how well it might have been proven in the real world) cannot possibly be acceptable.  Some of you might have gotten that idea.  However, I have tried in the past to include more real world examples. The points I'm going to try to make are these.

Science is great but it does not have all the answers.  All possible permutations and combinations have not and cannot be tested so trying to use science to prove that one concept is better than another is nebulous at best.

Research studies have innumerous problems associated with them. If you don't like a particular study (because it does not support your point of view) it is far too easy to criticize it on any of a multitude of levels.  Thus, anyone can rationalize almost any study to be good or bad based on its statistics, protocol, or whatever.

Empirical observation is useful but must be tempered with certain realities in mind.  For example, it is easy and convenient to say that since most people practice in a given way that this is the best way to practice.

These three points, and perhaps others, will be made much more clear to any of you interested enough to read all of this essay.

