Okay, but the passage 'conception quoted said nothing about proving anything. I don't know what source that was quoted from or what other claims that document

Okay, but the passage 'conception quoted said nothing about proving anything. I don't know what source that was quoted from or what other claims that document might make. (The quoted passage doesn't even tell us what theory its anecdote is being presented in support of.) But to claim that this passage in itself establishes that the source is "pseudoscience" or "bad science" is, frankly, ridiculous. You know, the scientific method has no special dispensations for orthodoxies -- if anything, the very notion of an orthodoxy should be repellent to a scientist. But scientists are human, and many people are attracted to orthodoxies. Yet if there's anything we know, it's that all theories, orthodox or not, have their limitations. Given that, isn't it a good thing that there are people willing to explore unorthodox possibilities even if most of them are wrong? I'm not suggesting credulity. I'm suggesting humility: a keen awareness of how much we still don't know.