You're missing the point that calling something "not real" is very often used as a method to discredit it. Saying "not real" discredits the fact that there are

You're missing the point that calling something "not real" is very often used as a method to discredit it. Saying "not real" discredits the fact that there are more barriers here. That's my primary issue with this. Phrenology can also be called "not real science" but it doesn't seem fair to paint both with such a broad brush. There's more nuance involved than an off-the-cuff "not real." Though at this point it all feels too belabored to carry on.