Oddthinking deleted this answer single-handedly. While I understand his reasons for doing so, his reasons do not conform to any valid philosophy of science. That much I can easily demonstrate on request. My answer is itself both reasonable and sound (if not, perhaps, perfect); it's a critique of methodology, which seems perfectly adequate for this topic, and which does not (as such) demand 'evidence'. Methodology precedes evidence, so analyses of methodology are sufficient to address problematic scientific claims.
Look, I came here more-or-less at random following a link on another Stack I participate on. I have neither the time nor the interest in squabbling with people who won't discuss things reasonably, be they administrators or regular members, and if this is the nature of this Stack — blind, unthinking adherence to some ill-defined and misunderstood set of quasi-empiricist principles — then I will simply un-join and get on with less annoying pursuits. I don't want to make that decision based on my experience with one (possibly misguided) administrator; particularly since I'm aware that I can be abrasive, and do occasionally trigger unfortunate egoic reactions in people.
I am who I am, and I have to deal with it as much as everyone else...
Please give me a broader understanding of whether Oddthinking's expressed attitude and behavior is typical of this site, or whether he is out-of-true on this particular issue. I'll figure out what I'm going to do after I get a broader perspective.