All of the paleo/ancestral bloggers who pride themselves on their science-based writings seem to maintain a strong stance against "woo." This is an expression designed to pour scorn on anything that hints of the esoteric, something which could be true but is unprovable by means of a clinical trial -- or at least a mathematical model. If you can't measure it, it ain't there.
Bullshit. I won't even bother to list things that we couldn't measure a few years ago.
I'm neither impressed nor bullied into yea-saying by all the "scientific disbelief" (i watched "Shanghai Express" again last night...), nor the contempt of the spirituality-bashers whose only instruction was amongst the kind of fundamentalist groups which can quote the entire bible and UNDERSTAND not one word of it. in fact, the bible is mostly sociology, not spirituality; my favorite reading in that department is Patanjali.
The notion of "God" as some old white guy with a beard, crowned and sitting on a cloud, IS bullshit -- no argument there. Yes, i do realize that this vision was put forth in the middle ages to educate the illiterate and put an imaginable form to that which is formless. And alternatively, expressing it as "something out there" is a little on the wishy-washy side; you don't want to upset your mother who is a pious ____ (enter denomination of choice), even though you think she's completely deluded -- but what the heck, she doesn't have too many years left, and if it makes her happy....
I've seen WAY too much in my 56 years to believe that it's all "material." From personal experience, i KNOW that "there are more things in heaven and earth ... than are dreamt of in your philosophy." "Evidence-based" isn't the same as "science-based."
I'm not trying to convince you, though -- you can believe any ol' thing you want, i really don't give a damn....
...Unless you try to tell ME what I should believe -- that's when we bring out the big guns (metaphorically speaking). I can quote till the cows come home. Wait -- i've already done that.