[crusso]

1. I don't understand. Are you saying that Feynman needed to NOT point out a flaw in the psychologist's method because she was doing things in a prescribed way or because doing things with "Scientific integrity" wouldn't have been easy?

> Feynman is beating up on psychology here, I think, because it's not as rigorous as physics.

I don't think the text of the address supports that conclusion. Even he were doing that, it doesn't mean that his argument was unsound. I don't understand the motivation for your ad hominem here, but I note the invalidity of your argument.

3. I don't understand. Does the fact that we have plenty of examples of 180 degree turnarounds in academic performance in the worst school districts in the country not indicate that there are solutions that empirically show a better way to run an education system not put a lie to your claim that this is not a problem that we can apply success-based Scientific-like methods to? I would most humbly suggest that you view the documentary entitled "Waiting for Superman" which documents successful education initiatives in some of the worst school districts in the country that are resisted by teachers' unions and the politicians whom they fund for obvious money and power reasons. Feynman, 40 years ago, had remarkable understanding of the problem that we're still dealing with today.

> As for your tone, why not try to be a little more humble,

I don't understand. Am I supposed to feign ignorance when I thoroughly understand the arguments you attempted to make and spotted why they are invalid? Would dissembling make me humble? I think they would make my rebuttal less clear and needlessly disingenuous... but we can try it your way for this post.