And who here has suggested doing that?

You are right in a sense. But I wasn't using it in the sense of studying about God. I was using it in a sense of approach. Do you believe we should just believe what someone else says about someone else wrote without actually reading what that person they were writing about actually wrote? That is the sense of what I'm saying of using the principles of the scientific method. Again, repeating, that was my objection.

The same spirit can be manifested in other ways.
How many times does a conversation in which two can't agree on what they see as truth, end in mud slinging?

OK. I understand more of what you're saying now. It's the terminology you used that confused me. Studying things out for one's self is common sense and the Bible tells us that this is a good thing. Paul says it makes us noble.

I still don't understand how you can say you're going to use the principles of the scientific method without actually using it though. If we apply the principles of a method of study we are actually using that method, for the principles of the method are what actually constitute the method.

I don't know. All I know is if someone treats my words fairly, and responds to me fairly without twisting what I say to mean something other than what I said, I don't find someone disagreeing with me to be something I find objectionable. It's when it crosses the line into dishonesty that I have a problem with it. Better yet, it's the dishonesty that I find objectionable, not the disagreement.

I have changed my mind on some pretty big issues over the years. The largest of them is the nature of Christ. The first time I heard someone holding forth the position I now hold I swore up and down to myself that he was a heretic. I began studying much more deeply on the subject than I ever had before to prove him wrong because we were in the same SS class and I was going to hold him accountable, and I ended up proving myself wrong instead.

I have an open mind to change, but I have done a lot of studying, and I look at everything I can find before I make up my mind, at least I do now after I proved myself wrong, so it takes a lot of evidence to change my mind on something. It doesn't mean I won't change my mind. The evidence just has to prove to me that I'm wrong.

That's good. The post wasn't meant to be personal -- just a general reflection on conditions.

I find one of the biggest problems is that forum discussion misses a very important aspect of communication -- and that is the personal presence of the other person -- their tone of voice, their expression, etc. Those elements can make a huge difference in the meaning of words.

Try substituting the word "letters" with the words "forum posts"Sometimes, the written element can give us away

I believe observation is one of the principles of the scientific method.

Should we observe the subject matter, or observe what someone says about the subject matter.

Content is not what I'm objecting to here, but the way to discover the content.

I guess I don't get it. Sure observation is a part of the scientific method, but it is not "the" scientific method. It is a God-given ability. It has been used since the creation of the world when there was no such thing as a scientific method. Adam used his advanced powers of observation when he named all of God's creation.

Oh, well, if I could communicate perfectly I'd be a billionaire instead of a poor man.

You do have a point there --
On a forum we are much more likely to present our viewpoints.