I understand where you're coming from here so I don't want to belabor the point, but what you're actually describing is more of a faith-based system rather than

I understand where you're coming from here so I don't want to belabor the point, but what you're actually describing is more of a faith-based system rather than one based on science! And I for one am simply no longer willing to take most of what (for example) shows up in the peer-reviewed literature these days based primarily on faith, and I haven't been for several decades now. The fact that you and so many others seem so readily willing to do so makes me seriously question your critical thinking skills. And I don't blindly trust that "the system works" really at all to the extent that's so it often claimed to. An awful lot of what gets published these days tends to just not hold up to close scrutiny, and often what appears to be groundbreaking research may just kind of up and disappear with no further trace soon enough, without ever directly or even indirectly leading to a practical new product or a new drug or whatever. I understand that this kind of thing is going to happen, and it may happen quite a bit if you're doing really groundbreaking stuff, but in general this should probably be more the exception than the rule. But yes, I do understand how the method works, and how the system that's supposedly based on that method works (when it actually does work), and also when it doesn't work and why, and what the motivations might be to try and pretend that it works even in situations when it actually doesn't. And rather than blindly defend it, maybe you try a bit harder to understand how it actually "works", too.