Well, I dunno, Jack. How would such a proposition BE "scientifically" tested, anyway? If it is outside the frame of "scientifically" testable propositions, which sometimes seems to me to be the case, that does not mean it is outside the realm of true propositions, unless you start from the assumption that only scientifically testable propositions can be true.

WHich you may well do, but this leaves you in the far reaches of almost absolute materialism, which I think (myself) is a pretty thin bet.

Now, there are to her ways to test things, of course--the notion of meditation being a repeatable experiment on the basis that a significant per centage of those doing it have similar experiences was discussed upthread, I believe. Why this doesn't count as science, I am not sure; there is nothing inherent in the fundamentals of scientific method that rules out experiential results. But pushing that line over into accepting only material results is kind of a popular (if deadening) idea these days.

Babies and bathwater, amigo. I think it is wise to be skeptical about conclusions and opinions, but to carry skepticism into the realm of jaded cynicism is bad for the heart.

A