The explanations on this site, the biology of EnSurf and the philosophy of experience it grows from, are a working hypothesis. The biology I hold the way Karl Popper taught scientists to hold any good idea: stated clearly enough that it could be shown wrong, and ready to change when the evidence says so. The philosophy can't be tested by a single experiment, so I hold it to the standard Popper also asked of ideas like it: open to criticism, and answerable to coherence and to the evidence it touches. When good evidence cuts against something I have written, the essay changes. That is the point of a hypothesis.
I also hold myself to coherence. The pieces of this picture, from mitochondria to sleep to the way we love one another, should fit together. When two essays pull against each other, I don't paper over it. I treat it as a signal that something needs fixing, and I fix it.
In each essay I try to keep two things apart: what is established and what is my own hypothesis. When you read "the evidence shows," I mean the research says so. When you read "I propose" or "this may," I am telling you where I have gone beyond it, so you can weigh it for yourself.
One thing on this site is not a hypothesis. I write as a Christian, and my faith is not a model I am testing. The philosophy here tries to describe how revelation works; it does not replace it. I find all of this most coherent in Christ.
Finally, this site is information, not medical advice. I am a physician, but I am not your physician. Please talk with your own doctor before changing anything about your health, medications, or supplements.