Ken, You have now characterised my views quite accurately, including what I think of "unifiable". I thought that was relevant to what OP was asking, but then what he wrote wasn't very clear.

So it was all a semantic mess-up between us. I'm pleased about that. I misunderstood you so badly until your last post that I was starting think you were taking a counter-scientific position, as you probably noticed. Pleased I was wrong about that.

As I said, OP's thread was not the clearest. He hasn't been back to clarify, and I don't blame him. Given we each had difficulty understanding the other, lord help poor OP.