There are a few things I've written in my previous posts in this thread, that I want to elaborate on, just to make them more clear and precise.
I would normally have re-written these things in the relevant, previous posts. But because editing becomes impossible on this forum, 6 hours after a post has been posted (which is a completely braindead rule/decision made by the forum-administrators); I therefore have to elaborate on these things in this separate post instead.
ELABORATION 1)
A hypothesis/assertion is proven true, when the evidences/arguments that support it, make it completely unreasonable from a rational point of view, to consider it "not true" or "unknown".
This is simply how the perception of objective truth works. And therefore, this principle is true both in the field of science, and in life in general.
And therefore, science can actually prove things (just like how empirical things and/or principles can prove things) – even though scientists themselves work from the mindset of supporting/unsupporting a hypothesis, rather than proving/disproving a hypothesis.
ELABORATION 2)
Science consists of any form of experiment that contains measurable elements, and where the scientific method has been applied and documented (which thereby is what turns the experiment into a scientific experiment). That's what science actually IS.
And science can thereby encompass both physical things (things that can be directly, physically observed) and psychological things (things that can't be directly, physically observed – and that instead rely on subjects' own assessments/statements/descriptions of things), respectively.
And both the science of physical things (things that can be directly, physically observed), and the science of psychological things (things that can't be directly, physically observed – and that instead rely on subjects' own assessments/statements/descriptions of things), are thereby equally valid forms of science.
And the quality of a scientific experiment, is determined by how well/properly the scientific experiment has been designed and executed.
And all of these facts about science, are OBVIOUS to anyone (like me) who actually understands science – and who actually knows the diversity of different, scientific experiments (the different forms that scientific experiments can take).
And the valid, scientific afterlife-research that I've been referring to in my previous posts in this thread; actually encompasses both the science of physical things (things that can be directly, physically observed), and the science of psychological things (things that can't be directly, physically observed – and that instead rely on subjects' own assessments/statements/descriptions of things). And scientific afterlife-research is therefore a perfectly valid field of science.
ELABORATION 3)
Most scientists are dedicated sceptics regarding the existence of an afterlife/souls.
And people who are dedicated sceptics regarding the existence of an afterlife/souls, are materialists (meaning that they consider the physical/material side of reality, to be the only side of reality).
And people who are materialists, are overly/unfairly critical towards scientific afterlife-research (as well as towards empirical afterlife-research).
In other words:
People who are materialists (such as most scientists), usually set higher requirements for the findings of scientific afterlife-research (as well as for the findings of empirical afterlife-research), than they set for the findings in any other fields of science.
And this imbalance/unfairness of requirements, is mainly due to their strong, materialistic bias/worldview; but is often also due to a secret fear that many of them have, regarding the religious implications of things, if the existence of an afterlife/souls were to be scientifically proven to be true (which it actually has been).
And these are the things that I was referring to, when I said (in my previous posts in this thread) that most scientists don't actually want the existence of an afterlife/souls to be scientifically supported/proven.
And in addition to this:
A lot of scientists have quite low intelligence and are quite irrational – just like a lot of other people in the world have/are. And this obviously often causes them to evaluate scientific findings poorly/incorrectly.
And that's the main reason (aside for financial gain in some cases) why there's a lot of lousy/bad science in the world (which is obvious to highly intelligent and rational people), that get accepted and adopted by academia, despite it actually being lousy/bad science in reality.
