Just curious as to where remote viewing would fall in this author’s continuum?
Sorry for the late comment but think the author appears to be setting up his own criteria for what is science. If accepting the Cartesian Method as a valid means of testing then the concept of homeopathy is valid.
author says:
“A good example of pseudoscience is homoeopathy, which presents the façade of a science-based medical practice but fails to adhere to scientific methodology.”
The truth is quite the opposite
The work done by Fritz Albert Popp on this subject and followup research by many others is indisputable. Does it make the garbage stores sell as homeopathic remedies valid? No. But that does not disprove the actual research on the subject? No.
So in answer to your question, I already think the author is capable of throwing aside things that have followed the accepted methods of research but seems to prefer what is marketable to the public instead.
In research you start with an idea, set up rigorous guidelines for testing, do the testing, write a paper on the methods of testing with outcomes and then present to others to reproduce those same results as was done with homeopathy.
Even though the work done by S.R.I. and P.E.A.R. and many other universities across the globe on Remote Viewing establishes it as a valid, I Don’t think this author would accept it. Because it’s not marketable and doesn’t fit the popular belief systems people so prefer to hold onto I don’t think the author would accept it.
I accept remote viewing as true and have done and continue to do my own work on the subject.
I read your bio page and would guess you do not. Am I correct?
BTW, I scored the same as you on the test link you provided at the end of your bio on where we are politically.
I do see we have different belief systems when it comes to how we believe we can find our path to God.