http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987711005883
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/089892902760807258
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smi.2460070306/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320505009136
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pne/4/2/183/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/smi.2460100207/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432810000136
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00890496#page-1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212683X13000029
http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=580612
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/102/Supplement_E1/1225.short
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=492820
Certain areas of research and development build enough weight of evidence so as to remove them from the realm of speculative opinion. Things such as Newton's laws of motion, Einstein's theories of relativity, and evolution by way of natural selection fall under this category. So too is it with the causal link between physiology, biology and neurochemistry and human cognition and behavior.
Furthermore, your entire argument is predicated on a couple of simple misspellings and thus you use that to question the entire validity of my position while offering exactly zero evidence of any position whatsoever. This is either profound arrogance or ignorance and in either case, I feel sorry for you.