Do you guys actually believe this stuff?

[JustLikeYou]

Different models adhere more or less strictly to the standards of truth. It would be nice if all models were as strict as the physical sciences, but they aren't. This does not render them untrue. Perhaps it renders them not yet true or potentially true. Theoreticians don't get to begin with a robust set of data that supports the infant theory. They have but a few data points and some interesting ideas.

You appear to assume that because there is no science about subject x, there can be no science. Or else that the science must be born adult and fully armored like Athena.

To say "scientific theories were made up, so if I make something up that deserves to be treated with the same respect" is what I heard, as that is essentially what you did.

I did not say this, nor do I intend to assert it. I'm not the fuzz-head you think I am. Rather, the things that a theoretician "makes up" need to be nurtured before they can be criticized, just like a child. The truly revolutionary theories (like Kant and Newton) need years of solitude before they can be safely revealed to the world without being laughed out of the room. But since we're talking about an entire science, even more nurturing is necessary. I'm not going to put myself with Kant and Newton, but they are definitely my role models.