What is the correct response to: Don't you believe in the healing power of Geodesic Domes?
The correct response is laughter...because it's a joke. Only jokers ask questions like that. However, even if it were not intended as a joke, the correct response remains laughter.
If this isn't you're response, you either have a surfeit of politeness, or you're crazy. Most weird-a$$ ideas are just wrong, and it's not worth devoting ANY brainpower to them until you have evidence that they might be correct.
IF someone persists...then you ask for a clear, english statement of the hypothesis...that you can understand in relation to stuff you can touch.
What measurements could we take that would distinguish a world where Geodesic domes had healing power be different from one wherein they didn't?
Then, you ask for non-anecdotal evidence (statistical, double blind, peer reviewed studies?) that demonstrate correlations between Geodesics and Accelerated healing rates.
If they can provide those...then you start your Bayesian approach, integrating this data with other data you have. Until then?
What about unicorns? *snort*
6-dimensional invisible blue banana? Thor? Other Gods?
The same result holds in all cases. I have NO evidence, and NO reason to believe. In these cases, the correct response remains laughter. Belief...or even taking the question seriously remains an epistemological error. Evidence needs to arrive before you even take the question seriously.
Aside: this assumes that your goal remains to arrive at a predictive model of the world. If your goal is otherwise (tribe-fitting, most likely), then by all means, do otherwise. Goal always precedes evaluation.