 Hi, yes. Thank you very much for your talk. Very interesting. I have a bit of a two-parter. So you mentioned some of the experiences that you've had witnessing firsthand these wonders of alternative religious medicine of the materials that they wrapped around your leg, which managed to do things that science couldn't really explain. I mean, my question is, when we call science a religion, it sort of implied that we're separating it from all the other religious ways of doing things. But is this example of alternative medicines also proving more than capable, not an example of science within that religion, and not an example of the scientific method simply conducted in the Far East for them to come to those conclusions? Why are they separate entities? Yeah, I think it is actually a bit of a cultural delusion that other cultures didn't use some version of the scientific method. It wasn't so formalized, but as far as like trying something out based on a hunch, based on a hypothesis, based on a theory, and then adjusting your hypothesis based on the results of your experiment, you know, I think that people have been doing that for a long time. Science formalized that, but I don't think that it's anything new. And I don't even think that what happened to my ankle is completely outside the bounds of what we're calling science. Like you might be able to describe how the phytochemicals and the paste interacted with my tissues and, you know, et cetera, et cetera, like you might be able to explain it that way. Or physiologically, a lot of it was the massage that he did on it, the little torture session. That was my, but for me, that was an indication that, you know, something was possible that I had not been told. And, but that's not the most dramatic example of that kind of thing. About a year ago, I was at a conference and I witnessed a man put his sickest finger into a concrete wall and pull it out again. And that's, again, like that's something that, according to, but what is science? Like I was going to say, according to commonly accepted science, that is considered impossible. But, you know, I mean, what is science? When you really ask that, then the boundaries dissolve. Just like when you ask what is anything, you might experience this as a philosopher. Anytime you really, really try to pin something down, it, the boundaries go blurry, and you realize that it isn't a thing, that it is a matrix of relationships. So, we get into trouble when we try to rigidly define something, which has been part of all enterprise of philosophy, like the idea has been, at least in analytic philosophy, that you establish a set of elemental principles, and then apply reason to reason from those elemental principles to achieve, you know, Weibniz's dream of resolving every argument through calculation. And, and that attempt never reaches the hoped for certainty because when we try to create these elemental concepts, and these contained definitions, we're leaving out all of the blurry stuff. We're creating an arbitrary boundary, and the stuff that gets left out of that boundary sneaks back in, and sabotages the effort towards certainty. So, anyway, that's more of a philosophical point. But, but yeah, I mean, really, like a lot of these questions depend on what is science, actually, and we can create all kinds of arguments by trying to pin it down into a thing. Like as soon as you try to pin it down into a thing, into a rigid category, you're going to generate endless opportunities for philosophical debate.