The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

Yeah, yeah. They laughed at Einstein. But you know what? They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.(Thank you, Carl Sagan.)

Reminds me...I took a class in college called "Research and Writing" (offered by the english dept) and the professor was a visiting sociologist they conned into teaching the class. She had us start writing research papers (obviously), and after I had picked my topic (a study of various science fiction predicitions) she had us explain our materials and methods.Great for science, where those things vary, but literary criticism is a different beast:Materials: Books.
Method: I'm gonna read 'em!What else could I say?

Could you explain how this distinction is any more meaningful than the distinction "EVIdence for demons, not eviDENCE for demons"?

Oh, good lord. More of the "evidence but not proof" malarkey.When you actually have evidence of something, I'll pay attention. But there's no more reason to pay attention to what you have then there is to pay attention to the guy who has evidence for but not of the government plot to put a chip in his head.

Why do people use "apropos" instead of "appropriate" or "appropriately"? Is it just because it's shorter? Is it because that guy in The Matrix Reloaded used it?