After 20 years of "polyvagal" speculations, and almost 3 years of evaluation in which over many scientists seem to have read my earlier project and question (about 13,000 reads in total), but without a single individual providing any direct supporting evidence, are the polyvagal suppositions an example of "post-truth" in Science?

Three years ago, before the world was faced with Donald Trump, I submitted to ResearchGate (RG) the question, "After 20 years of "polyvagal" hypotheses, is there any direct evidence for the first 3 premises that form the foundation of the polyvagal conjectures?" A bit later, I added a RG Probject, “Examining Porges’ Polyvagal Suppositions.” To date, judging by the 13,000 “reads,” supplied by ResearchGate statistics, many scientists have had the opportunity to read there projects and their accompanying comments and updates. Only a handful have publicly responded, and none have provided any evidence—direct or even indirect— in support of the polyvagal speculationsf. Rather each was rather pessimistic about notions polyvagal. Therefore, none of the many researchers publishing papers within the rationale of a polyvagal context, nor any others (including the main polyvagal author), have come forward with any evidence in direct support of the first 3 major premises of the suppositions. On the other hand, in additional comments to the earlier question, I presented a number of sources of evidence that appear to refute those premises.

ResearchGate would seem a fine platform to discuss evidence for and against such aggregations of assertions as the polyvagal speculations, since 1) RG is composed of a network of many serious scientists engaged in research on autonomic mechanisms, biological evolution, quantitative aspects of measurement of autonomic parameters, and/or related CNS and psychophysiological functioning, all relevant to the arguments made for and against the polyvagal (and other) ideas; 2) RG is an open forum in which significant biases of scientific peer review are not in play (e.g. frequently, insufficient time and expertise of reviewers, cronyism, lack of possibility for open-ended dialogue, prejudice toward publication of positive findings); 3) the possibility for in-depth analysis and discussion (increasingly not possible in mainstream scientific publishing); and 4) the ability directly to share and exchange primary sources, like articles and data.

My personal assessment is that such a platform gives new opportunities and could be extremely beneficial to the advancement of scientific knowledge. Despite these possibilities and wide readership of these projects, no dialogue has resulted after the passage of quite some time. One might wonder, what is going on in the world of science? Are we really interested in the pursuit of knowledge or merely in producing publications and acquiring precious research funding?

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) reported the word "post-truth" as their 2016 Word of the Year: Post-truth  (Oxford English Dictionary Word of the Year 2016)

"Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief: 

”In this era of post-truth politics, it’s easy to cherry-pick data and come to whatever conclusion you desire.’"

It seems that this definition rather clearly applies to the current status of the concept, "polyvagal". Of course, I believe it would be useful and informative to discuss this matter, since there have been over 1,500 publications mentioning or focussing upon "polyvagal" just during the last two years. In the popular Twitter social medium (believed to have been recently responsible for the exponential rise of post-truth politics), there are perhaps thousands of tweets focussed upon “polyvagal,” about 200 just over the last 2 months--mostly attempting to advertise some  form of therapy based on polyvagal premises. Prominent psychotherapists in field of psychological trauma therapy base their theories upon polyvagal suppositions that appear to be without substance (e.g. Peter Levine of Somatic Emotional Experiencing, and Bessel van der Kolk) . Is this an example by which "objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief" (OED, 2016)?

Are current societal trends in discounting evidence now infiltrating science and creating belief systems at odds with empirical evidence?  Or is there some other explanation that can reasonably account for this popularity of the "polyvagal"? These are not uninteresting issues. Regarding my last ResearchGate question, a number of researchers came forward via private email communications to suggest a religious or cultish quality to this polyvagal enthusiasm but were hesitant to make their statements public. Is there perhaps an element of wishing to explain relations between mind and body in a simple comprehensive model that might lend biological credibility to a psychological intervention? Or perhaps, there is still some evidence lurking in the periphery that provide some clear direct support for the model? Since this issue has gained broad popularity, transcending a merely academic framework, it is, in my opinion, essential and timely to debate. I keep hoping that such a forum as ResearchGate might stimulate discussion.

Replies might also pertain to other fields of science, in which the same tendencies may be seen.