_"...appear pseudo-scientific from today's point of view..."_ implies, at the very least, that it is in any way scientific. And that is a HUGE problem, for it i

_"...appear pseudo-scientific from today's point of view..."_ implies, at the very least, that it is in any way scientific. And that is a HUGE problem, for it is distorting the definitions. It _is_ a big deal, because once you start skewing eroding definitions, the very foundation of human communication & coordination is compromised. Definition of word "scientific", according to meriam-webster[1] is : "of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science" So, call it fun or interesting. Say it makes people feel better. Point out it makes life easier to live for some. But it is not, from any point of view, scientific. Because it fails to comply with the scientific principles. Mental mechanisms that produce and amplify superstition is well understood. There's but one reason why superstition/religion want to hide under, integrate or identify with the scientific framework, while science is sharply separating itself: science works, therefore is powerful, while other has no effect beyond placebo. 1: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific