Regardless of whatever shortcomings the model may have, I don’t really see how it merits being derided as “pseudoscience.”
“Not only did we test it, we managed to falsify one of its predictions,” …
So there is at least one testable hypothesis, and the available evidence doesn’t seem to support. Maybe not great science, but at least they are trylng to eliminate possibilities.
We seem to be on the verge of being able to observe thoughts (as in article below). In a few more years there will be better data, and then things will get really interesting.
Same story, more details.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.