very nice summary, Wolfgang. (Thank you especially for noting why this thread drifted from Jerry's original concept.) If it is read by those we have debated in this thread, I suspect that sentences like these will be singled out:

" I only do not consider these ideas to have a proper place in science. The reason for that is simple: They do not lead to testable predictions."

"Tell me, how for instance a grant proposal in broader scope science could look like with empirically testable predictions..."

Unfortunately, I see many arguments that assert that 'not being empirically testable' is no problem, as the very point is that their claims do not fall under standard scientific purview. This is put forward as a feature, not a flaw. I have been told several times now that I will understand when it happens to ME.

My answer, if something amazing does 'happen' to me....No, I will NOT understand and accept in a blinding flash of non-linear intuition. I will investigate and ponder and compare and analyze ....and hope I can recreate the experience and do something that will leave no doubt with others that it is 'real'-in the broad sense of the word.

I do not doubt that people are honest and sincere when they report unusual phenomena like OOB experiences or contact with aliens or precognition or healing-- I just reserve judgment about the precise cause.

But when it comes to disputes about such things as evolution, Wolfgang has made the point very well. To simply dismiss it as merely 'theory' is to misunderstand the very concept and to "show ignorance of what a theory in science is and how it is related to facts."

We can write all day, but no one, on either side of the dispute, can enforce whether others accept their view, whether it is based on reason, faith, logic or simple rhetoric.

I suppose we must leave it at that.