One might get the impression that I recommend a new methodology which replaces induction by counterinduction and uses a multiplicity of theories, metaphysical views, fairy tales, instead of the customary pair theory/observation. This impression would certainly be mistaken. My intention is not to replace one set of general rules by another such set: my intention is rather to convince the reader that all methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits.

Results from a given approach are "facts" as long as the approach fits the group or the tradition that is being addressed.

Without a constant misuse of language there cannot be any discovery, any progress

Ultimate Reality, if such an entity can be postulated, is ineffable.

Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise.

Arguments hardly affect the faithful- their beliefs have an entirely different foundation.

First-world science is one science among many; by claiming to be more it ceases to be an instrument of research and turns into a (political) pressure group.