Ah yes...good 'ole scientific method, and suppossed scientists...

As you know, Sunni, I have a psyc research PhD like you (i.e., the culmination of years of study of scientific method, stats and research design), plus a grad degree in science/astronomy, and yet I always smile at those who discuss science and its daily operation as though it were some sort of logical, unemotional calculating machine.

The fact is, anyone who has actually engaged with the modern scientific process (eg, publishing results in 'peer-reviewed' journals and so on) should realise that there is a huge difference between the philosophy of science (i.e., the way we are taught that it should conduct itself), and the actual practice of science, where individual egos and self-esteem (in the form of protecting one's own ideas and the status quo), reign supreme. Hence, we have Kuhn's 'paradigm shifts', which basically hold that existing ideas - even when incorrect - become so entrenched that they are difficult to overthrow. Of course, if science was as objective and impartial as most people believe it to be, this would not be the case at all.

Also, as you say, there is the well known issue of the 'placebo' effect - mainstream (medical) 'science' uses it as a catch-cry for any effect that cannot be explained by drugs, which means just about everything, given that the placebo effect is often much stronger than drugs. However, this term is used in a derogatory sense, and no attempt is made to better understand what it actually represents - if it is just a person's mindset, then the fact is that modern 'medical science' - based around pharma concerns and profit margins rather than health, many would say, is in a lot of trouble indeed. What sort of pharma-free world would we live in if people's thoughts could change their state of health so dramatically?

Finally, the sceptics...again, these often act no differently to the very people they oppose, and appear so dogmatic and unscientific in their quest to maintain a given viewpoint that their stance is often indistinguishable from that of a religion. One of the most eroneous statements ever made was that regarding Sagan's 'extraordinary proof' being required for 'extraordinary' claims . To quote from Dr. Brian O'Leary's excellent book ('The Second Coming of Science', p.14):

"It is also curious that the 'extraordinary proof' argument is most frequently invoked as an argument against initiating the very investigative process that might develop such proof. The zealous skeptic often seems to overlook the fact that proof is the final stage of a successful scientific investigation, not its starting point!"

Hence, Sagan's old catch-cry is, from the outset, inherently subjective and unscientific.

Finally, in addition to 'if our science and tools cannot find something it does not exist', I would add 'if our science and tools cannot currently imagine or achieve something, it cannot be done.'

Hence, Aliens cannot be responsible for countless UFO sightings etc etc throughout history (regardless of the background of some of the witnesses and so on), because in the public domain we don't have the technology to travel interstellar distances. Hence, UFO's are always just that, and nothing more, and must not be investigated. That type of skewed logic would have got Sunni or I a 'Fail' in our undergrad methodology courses...). The same can be applied to other examples, including the mind/body distinction Sunni made (where there is an abundance of evidence suggesting the opposite of what is taught in school and most universities).