Mind Opener

Yes those things happen and we should find out.
My idea was that the less assumptions I use, and the less objects I use, and the less relationships per object in the firmament of a theory, the more probable the theory becomes. As it is easier to be wrong than right.
You could argue that science may not have the strongest of firmaments, but its results are proven through experience to be correct in every day situations. The scientific method shows results, it works to a certain degree. Science doesn't just make sense; through science we have gained insight in this world that is of use. And ways of thinking that go against the principles of science have a hard time doing this.
However, this alone doesn't tell us to what degree the scientific method works compared to something else. If we use a new idea it might work a hundred times better or worse. The scale or usefulness of the results does not answer the question to what extend the theory is true, unless you have explored the other possibilities. That's how science works. We try a lot, and the things that work best are used, the things that don't work become interesting.
There is a very important step between theory and practice which is method. Our first attempts at flying weren't very successful either. And the very sad truth is, that while the idea on this website looks to have potential and to be somewhat probable, it is completely ignored and remains unexplored territory.
My way of thinking does not dispute the scientific results and it is their firmaments, not their results, that should determine their probability and with it our investment in exploring their effectiveness.