While I agree with the majority of your posts, I see fundamental errors in your definition of some terms. For example,
As such, scientists don't deal with spirits, ghosts, God or any other deities, past life experiences or anything else that can't be verified by observation or (mathematical) proof.
As a scientist and engineer that also lives in a spiritual community and works with many universities and independent research entities, I can tell you that this is not the case. If science did not study these things, we would have no chemistry or physics, because their origins in alchemy were once considered "magic".
Arthur C. Clarke stated, "Magic's just science that we don't understand yet.", which is why it is important to study it with a scientific eye. Past lives, to take one example, can be observed and tested with a scientific protocol, allowing us to take the "myth" part out of experiences that have been recorded by millions of people around the world and can be scientifically verified. Here is a small sample of studies done on this topic by the University of Virginia School of Medicine, tho name just one. We should continue these types of investigations to show that there is no gap between science and spirituality except the yet-to-be discovered threads that tie them together.
The more I dive into Alchemy, the more I see the origins of the universe rooted in physics. The more I study plant intelligence, the better I understand the threads of human consciousness. As Nikola Tesla said:
The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.
Thanks for yet another well thought out response @yvesoler :-)
There's no error in definitions as far as I can see, but I did generalize a lot; you represent a strong a minority in "mainstream" science. I also did several articles on these past-life experiences and know of the studies you mention. But they also are a strong minority. The works of Emoto and all the experiments done on plant consciousness are niche at best. That's not to say I agree with that, on the contrary, but it is the reality as far as I'm able to assess. Heck, some of the more hardcore naturalists even go as far as to say philosophy is useless (Hawkins, Krauss)... I'm just glad there's also some like you @yvesoler, and yes, since the discovery of quantum mechanics more and more scientists are beginning to feel the weight of their sheer inability to deal with the immaterial, the "magic".
Great response!
I wonder just how minority some of these topics are? I am constantly in awe at the number of PhD students that are doing their research in more alternative views of science. Just the other day I got a message from a university professor in Switzerland that works in computational modeling, and she was hoping to have her PhD student work crunching data we had available about plant music and human interaction, i.e. entanglement. I have had lots of different types of scientists contact me, but a person that works specifically in statistics and hard numbers was a first!
I spent some time reading through the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a while back, and was amazed at all the information in there that was once considered "magic". Even Plant Signaling & Behavior, a science that was non-existent only 15 years back, has found ways to explain phenomena that were outside the understanding of traditional science. Personally, I find all these border sciences super interesting, as I find the use of more traditional forms of biology in new areas of development, such as #biomimicry and other types of nature-inspired solutions, inspiring. Science has spent lifetimes trying to break apart the natural world into tiny little components. But I find the richness of Life in the interconnections.