Percy,
I take it that you have no professional training as a scientist. Or maybe those who trained you botched the job up. At least, both these hypotheses are amply confirmed by your curious response.
But you ask,
Why do you praise yourself as "trustworthy authority"
Same reasons doctors put their diploma on the wall of their consulting room, and lawyers bring their license into the courtroom. All checkable. Professional last name is Fretwell. Currently cited several hundred times a year on research published 25 years ago, two, maybe three "citation classics." How I understand science to work has been tested and confirmed, validated. Those looking for the truth will want to know this. They ask, "Oh yeah, Who says?"
More importantly, this is the fallacy of argument from authority, made doubly worse in that the referenced supposed authority is yourself. Your arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on whether or not you're a scientist.
Authority does not contribute arguments to the discovery of the truth. It does contribute counsel, advice on important ideas to consider, and important information to look up. You say that there is no scientific evidence for spiritual beings, I say that you are wrong, and give references. All those who choose to love the truth will, if they have any reason to regard me as a trustworthy authority, will check out the references. All those who choose to defend their opinions will ignore and remain ignorant of this information.
Less than one scientist in 1000 is honestly looking for the truth...
Can I assume that you include the scientists whose work you accept, including yourself, in this equation?
Yes. Like Diogenes, I look diligently for honest men and women, using certain criteria for making judgments. But even the crooks are useful.
The mere existence of (so-called) "pseudoscience and quackery" is not evidence of an ongoing paradigm shift. The fact of the matter is that your findings have found no standing in the scientific community, and there's a good reason for that - they're not supported by any evidence.
() remarks added, with quotes.
Kuhn supports with historical data his disagreement with this statement, which you do not do. So, I'm going with Kuhn.
Hospitals and doctors do not provide prayer as part of medical treatment. There are many churches that minister to hospital patients, and patients can indicate if they're interested in being visited by clergy, but prayer is not part of medical treatment.
What *has* been scientifically established is that maintaining social contacts and a positive attitude have beneficial effects on medical outcomes. Whether the social contacts are religious or secular makes no difference.
These are ignorant remarks, below you, Percy. Do your homework!
That's as dumb as saying the reduction in infections brought about by hand-washing confirms that germs exist. It does no such thing. Such sloppy thinking is why you're not convincing anyone here that you're a scientist.
Of course it does, especially if, as was the case, it was suspected and hypothesized that, if germs were the problem, hand-washing would cure it. Like I say, you are only proving that your science education is sorely lacking. No wonder you believe in evolution.
Anyone who doubts germs exist can be provided a microscope and some slides.
Now, 100 years later, they can. And only because those who put aside their skepticism on the matter researched it instead of discounting it out of hand.
Anyone who doubts demons exist can be provided...what, Stephen? What is your evidence for demons? You have all these fanciful ideas about where demons reside and what they can do, but you have no evidence of their reality.
Prayer studies. You can do them yourself, and will if you love the truth. But won't if you love your opinions. Do them right, that is.
I'm just referring to your own words which seem to be saying that you thought your scientific studies confirmed your religious beliefs.
I do not regard anything as religious beliefs unless the person holding them so identifies them. Hand washing is a religious duty to orthodox Jews, and a sound health practise to scientists studying microbes and disease. Baptism is a religious practise to Christians, and a part of the materials and methods in a prayer experiment to me.
I hope this makes this issue more understandable.
Stephen
™ Version 4.2