science and numbers

[John Grehan]

 If you can't put it into numbers, its not
>science.  Alas, in its present stage much of conservation biology  falls
>into this category.  

Although this point is not about leps, I couldn't let it go by without
comment.
While agreeing with the importance of prediction as a key element of
scientific
endevour, and the need for quantitative analysis, the view that if it
cannot be put into numbers its not science is, in my opinion, a restrictive
definition that does not
correspond to the scope of actual scientific research.

There is plenty of "science" with numbers that
is no better for it, and there is plenty of non-science with numbers. There
is also plenty of science where numbers only later provided quantitative 
corroboration. Numbers have their place, but without an adequate conceptual
framework in the first place, their significance is no greater than the
platform within
which they are embedded.

This is just another opinion, and I don't intend to stray further off
Lepidoptera
as such (whether or not I count them).

John Grehan