Responsible communication: science versus spirituality for the web

How to write about the SR for an audience interested in spirituality, without spreading disinformation? Here is a practical guide, according to which this website too is written.

1. Separate three levels. What is measured (🔬), what is a hypothesis (🧪) and what is belief or an unsupported claim (⚠️). Do not mix these levels in a single sentence in such a way that a hypothesis becomes a "fact". Cherry's and more recent reviews on the influence of the SR on humans are legitimate *hypotheses*, not proof Cherry 2002 Nelson 2025 Nevoit 2025.

2. Respect the reader, but be clear. Spirituality and personal experience have their place on the web; but name an unsupported claim as unsupported — politely and with an explanation of *why*. "Understanding why it does not work" is more valuable to the reader than mockery.

3. Use cautious wording. Recommended phrases:

• "Science so far shows that…" (for established findings),
• "It is a hypothesis that research is only now verifying…" (for 🧪),
• "This claim has no scientific support, because…" (for ⚠️),
• "Subjectively it may help someone, but it is not proven."

4. No health promises. The SR is not a therapeutic method; it does not replace a doctor. Do not give the reader instructions that a frequency will "heal" something.

5. Show how to read the data. Instead of scaring people with a graph, explain what the graph really means (see #98). An informed reader will defend themselves against disinformation on their own.

*Cluster N file — part of the Schumann resonance knowledge base.*