> I remind you of the incompleteness theorem, that there are truths that are true yet are unreachable by axiomatic induction. Science can strictly speaking not

> I remind you of the incompleteness theorem, that there are truths that are true yet are unreachable by axiomatic induction. Science can strictly speaking not prove any truth, so the incompleteness theorem is irrelevant. Science tries to establish useful models. A model's usefulness is determined by its ability to predict the future (roughly speaking), whereas models whose predictions turn out untrue are eventually discarded. It is perfectly fine to throw in hypotheses for how things work - that's how science advances. But there is a fine line between suggesting a causation and assuming that it is true just because it makes sense but hasn't been scientifically tested yet. That's more or less the opposite of science, which is (I guess) why there has been a relatively strong response to your statements. That way lies healing crystals.