Scientific or not science?

Here's an application of a principle alluded to at several places on our Web site. [EXAMPLE]

"Science is exploration at the edges of human comprehension,"
expresses an implication not an equivalence.

Do these Web pages suggest that to be rational a person must be a scientist?
Do these Web pages suggest that only science is logical?
Do these Web pages suggest that to be logical and rational a person must be thinking science?

Actually, those are perverted inversions of implications and are precisely the opposite of what this Web site is all about.

Science teaches more than science.  It demonstrates how human thinking can do better than it has in the past.  So, it's not the science concepts that should be applied outside science; its the thinking that led to the concepts.  Great creators of literature, of music, of painting use the highest levels of human information insight.  Great politicians, journalists, economists, labor leaders, healers, community organizers, arbitrators, clergy, teachers, and simply good neighbors; find valuable insights from keeping implications straight, from identifying relevance and irrelevance, from extrapolating to unnatainable limits, from imagining all possible alternatives, and from maintaining a well-functioning crap detector.  Scientific understanding has, perhaps, become a little more developed than artistic and social understanding, because science tackles the simpler questions.  But the thinking that underlies science is not "just an alternative way of thinking."  It is necessary for exploration at the edges of human comprehension, and much of the thinking offered as an alternative to science's kinds of information processing is insufficient to the tasks it gets applied to.

Shakespeare and Stravinsky, too, explored the edges of human comprehension.