I never suggested academia was immune from criticism. I pointed out that 'core-questions was responding to something _other_ than the topic at hand. I find the

I never suggested academia was immune from criticism. I pointed out that 'core-questions was responding to something _other_ than the topic at hand. I find the way you've responded to this, suggesting the field may not actually exist, and posing leading questions about hypothetical conclusions, quite strange. You need not take my word for it that this is a field of study. People think about it. Then they write about it. And then they critique each other. You can easily find their work for yourself. What else is required for something to be a field? Don't you think it would be more productive to respond to actual precepts of the field and actual conclusions people have come to? What claims are quackery? What precepts are absurd?