[chronic_loser]

You have a great deal of faith(!) that scientists are somehow immune from their own prejudices in interpreting data. Willing self-deception is not bred out of a person simply because they get an advanced degree.

True, Objective review of the facts is the kicker. It is also true that objectivity, ESPECIALLY when it comes to metaphysical concepts and the "footprints" the metaphysical may leave in the physical universe, is much rarer than one would assume. Let me give you an example: Francis Crick made headlines a few years ago with his adoption (along with Hoyle and a few others) in publicly proclaiming his belief in panspermia. There was a big writeup about it in PUNCH magazine (the London equivalent of the New Yorker). His reasoning was that the evolutionary model of naturalism was simply mathematically impossible. As wild as the belief sounds that life on earth came from "outer space" Crick claimed "it is the only reasonable hypothesis. Darwinism is tired and played out and simply doesn't fit, and the other alternative, that of special creation, is clearly fantastic." No prejudice there, mind you.

[crail]

One scientist is not science. Crick said that, and the evidence hasn't been forthcoming, or convincing. Lots of scientists say crazy stuff, but unless they publish it, with evidence, and the evidence stands up, it isn't further considered.

As an example, Brian Josephson, of Nobel prize in physics fame, claims to have evidence of ESP. The evidence is flimzy. While his is a very talented physicist, his claims of ESP do not stand. Even in spite of the authority a Nobel prize gives one. Simple as that.