do you view paleontology to be a science? how about psychology? or archeology?
Psychology and paleontology are scientific disciplines (I worked in the field of psychology for several years). They use the scientific method to produce results. The work they produce is observable, testable, repeatable and fasifiable, otherwise its not considered accurate.
Archeology has a foot in the camps of science and humanities. It uses scientific methods for much of its work, but also relies on histories and human cultural studies and interactions, so cannot be considered as a 'science' alone.
Science is not a matter of which sources you chose to believe,
that's just bias. Science is a method of determining the explanation that best fits the evidence. Its the best and most reliable method of doing this that humankind has developed.
Does it get everything right? No. All answers in science are tentative and subject to be overturned, even the 'laws' (as they are descriptive, not proscriptive). Thus, Copernicus overturned Ptolmey, Einstein overturned Newton, uniformism overturned catastrophism and Darwin disproved Lamarck. Science often works by people trying to break the work of others (often kindly known as peer review
)
Now, if you can provide a peer reviewed study on 'biological auras', that'd be great.
