Once again, PZ Myers demonstrates poor thinking:
There is no expectation that a system for generating knowledge has to follow a narrowly defined scientific method (although no one has yet shown us a functioning alternative.)
I see. So mathematicians and logicians follow the "narrowly defined scientific method". (Alternatively, they don't employ a knowledge generating method, but that's simply absurd.) Pray tell, PZ, what is this "narrowly defined scientific method" of which you speak? Please, define it for us. I'd also like to know what's required for someone to "show" a functioning alternative. And to whom is this alternative to be shown? That is, who is the "us" you refer to? You and your mom? You and your blog fans? I don't expect answers, of course. You don't have them. Nothing to see here folks. Just more psychobabble of a New Atheist flavor.