> Can I safely assume your expertise in the history, philosophy, and practice of science is the result of graduating from one or more specialized programs?

I can't believe what I'm reading. Science rejects authority. If you were properly educated, you would know this. As Richard Feynman said, "Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion".

This is not a new view of science. The British Royal Academy, founded in 1660, has as its motto "Nullius in Verba," or "Take no one's word for it." Their explanation: "It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment."

This is a classic discussion of parapsychology and other pseudosciences. One person says, "There are no theories or evidence." A true believer's reply is usually some variation on "Are you an expert? If not, then you have no right to an opinion."

The obvious reply is to ask, "Expert in what? There's no established field, no theories, no legitimate studies, in which to be an expert."

When Einstein published his revolutionary papers in 1905, he was a Swiss patent clerk without an advanced degree. Did the science journal reject his papers because he had no authority? No, not really. Know why? They were scientists.

> ... just tell me the basis of your academic authority

Learn something about science. Science is not a religion. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence (and I already said this, to no effect).