I fail to see how what you&#x27;re describing can be distinguished from a psychological effect.<p>I don&#x27;t think anyone disputes the fact that (summed up and oversimplified) attitude matters; but it&#x27;s not as if attitude matters to the extent that it is more important than the cancer processes themselves.<p>I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s quite as you describe though; the side demanding proofs do emphasize experience (which is what empiricism is built upon), but it demands a certain standard (which is what skepticism is about).<p>Not being so generous towards the other &quot;side&quot;, I would suggest that it has a problem with regards to bothering with metacognition, as its sympathizers are often more occupied with speculation and imagination - running their mouths, rather than ensuring that what they say makes any sense.<p>While the adventurous streak in the &quot;experience side&quot; is somewhat admirable, it simply isn&#x27;t up to par with regards to (standards for) credible claims of truth and knowledge - not to mention that the approach of mindlessly plunging into every unknown might lead to certain death in some cases.