Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
... until you supply successful images that can back up all the wonderful theories and tech mumbo jumbo.
So, would "real" scientific information really help us in producing a great print from a Pyro negative
This is exactly what George Eastman did. He applied scientific principles so that the average Joe could make successful images.

I would say the success of Kodak in the last century is adequate evidence of this method.

or the advice of people who may have no clue about it but have printed thousands of negatives from it and can actually give their "professional" opinion?
And this is exactly the mechanism Bob used successfully. He's in good company. There is passage in one of the A.A. books about Weston where the supreme geek of photography comments that he was watching Weston work and wondering just what in heaven's name the guy was doing. The final comment was "but the results speak for themselves." Clearly an acceptance by Adams that Weston's methodology was legitimate, even if it wasn't scientifically rigorous.

IMO it is a mistake to think of this as a zero sum game. Neither approach is wrong.