Thank you for staying in the conversation and being respectful. Such a rare exchange this many iterations in!

I agree your conclusion applies to the "scientific method," however we are not in perfect accord regarding "science."

Regardless of such definitions, I think our disagreement is about whether to "vet rigorously through the scientific process" particular ideas. As I understand your position, you believe that because certain ideas (medical practices in this case) deviate considerably from our current biological paradigm, they are not worthy of study. My position is that no idea is unworthy of study (via the scientific method). I will concede, though, that in a world of scarce resources, we do have to make some choices, and spending resources on x-ray vision is probably out of bounds.

But I believe you are wrong to dismiss such claims, however, simply because they sound fantastic. To dismiss without study is as grievous a violation of the scientific method as accepting without study. And remember, as Mr. Clarke quipped, any sufficiently advanced science will appear to be magic (or something like that).

We also seem to disagree on the current state of our knowledge. I think it is an act of hubris to assume we have any particular fraction of knowledge about how the universe works. Time and again throughout history, mistrusted and persecuted pioneers have turned our model of reality on its head. Where would we be if we embraced those pioneers instead? True, half (at least) would be just plain crazy. How many folks like Galileo (to cite a well-known, albeit almost mythic, example), folks who had the right, but unpopular and politically inexpedient idea, remained in obscurity because they lacked the stamina, resources, or luck to promote and pursue their ideas in the face of a damning orthodoxy?

Even if, through research, we discover that fantastic ideas are really just fantasy, the act of research might lead to real and useful ideas. As my chem professor like to point out, serendipity is the most important principle of science.

To return to the MX article, I prefer my journalism far more stolid, but I do think we should continue to explore the fantastic through honest discourse and methodological study.