This isn't about science or faith. It's about the gray area of plausibility.
If the latest tweak/craze involved wrapping up some dog s**t in aluminum foil and depositing it on top of your CD player, would you do it? I'd bet not, because it would cross the plausiblity threshold of nearly any sane person. Some would demand a bit of insight, and rightfully so. That is what is being alluded to as 'science' here. They (myself included) want some evidence that the claimed process, product or ritual is possible. Just a simple, plausible explanation, even sans conclusive proof. When that information is not forthcoming, most become suspicious. Again, rightfully so. Unfortunately Norm, MD products seem to set off the bulls**t detectors of many on this site, and the threshold of plausibility is breeched. Of course, it doesn't make them(us) right.
Having an open mind, or 'faith,' is the other side of this coin. Everyone has a certain amount of it, in various things. It is only interrupted by the same threshold of plausibility. How much confidence are you willing to invest in a tangible or conceptual thing without supporting evidence? If you hear an audible difference in your system, better or worse, brought forth by any kind of product, that doesn't make the difference real, nor the believer right.
The argument then lies not among two opposing sides afterall, because we all invest a certain amount of faith and demand a certain amount of evidence in our daily lives. It's a sliding scale that rests at a unique point for every individual.
P.S. I do find something wrong with being vindictive and petty in defending the indefensible. Neither side of this argument is 100% correct...
