In fact most human beings at most times (including today) have accepted both propositions as real.
That should be a tipoff for you. Of all the things most humans have accepted as real, how many of them do we currently recognize as real? The general acceptance of a position is a virtual guarantee that it’s completely wrong.
As for your text—no one who seriously suggests that mental states affecting health and shamanistic death spells are evidence for either ‘non-reductionism’ or psi is worth taking the time to refute in detail.
(Hint: there are perfectly-suitable existing explanations for both of those things. Immune system cells are highly responsive to neurotransmitters, and are thought to have either be the evolutionary progenitors or descendents of neurons. There are obvious benefits to distributing resources differently when organisms are under stresses, and the immune system is an obvious resource drain. As for the voodoo explanation, it’s called “the vagus nerve”.)
The nifty thing about science is that, when it possesses dogmas, it does a pretty good job of overturning them. Psi advocates have had plenty of opportunities to demonstrate real phenomena. They have failed. They have repeatedly, demonstrably, empirically failed. If you do not believe their failure constitutes a valid reason to reject their premises, what premises DO you believe science has had reason to reject?
As for your text—no one who seriously suggests that mental states affecting health and shamanistic death spells are evidence for either ‘non-reductionism’ or psi is worth taking the time to refute in detail.
(Hint: there are perfectly-suitable existing explanations for both of those things. Immune system cells are highly responsive to neurotransmitters, and are thought to have either be the evolutionary progenitors or descendents of neurons. There are obvious benefits to distributing resources differently when organisms are under stresses, and the immune system is an obvious resource drain. As for the voodoo explanation, it’s called “the vagus nerve”.)
The nifty thing about science is that, when it possesses dogmas, it does a pretty good job of overturning them. Psi advocates have had plenty of opportunities to demonstrate real phenomena. They have failed. They have repeatedly, demonstrably, empirically failed. If you do not believe their failure constitutes a valid reason to reject their premises, what premises DO you believe science has had reason to reject?