you seem pretty level-headed and well-intentioned so that's good. but I think you need to ask yourself at what point does dismissing something become ignoring r

you seem pretty level-headed and well-intentioned so that's good. but I think you need to ask yourself at what point does dismissing something become ignoring reality? you use the word unsupported but that word is problematic. it's problematic because in the context of the scientific method what's supported and not is a constantly changing landscape in flux, moved by phenomena, experiments, data and their interpretation. I'm not saying you're not aware of what that word means. I'm saying that I suspect that you apply it liberally when actually scientifically that word means something like an even-handed assessment of all the evidence, over time. so if you want to have a model faithful to reality you have to be very careful about how you use that thought, about "support". so let's take the study zero ling tear. that shows some anomalous retrocausal effect. how do you update your beliefs when encountered with his paper from Cornell? the other really important point is this is a phenomenon that people experience. it's qualia, and there's lots of documented things like remote viewing blind side memories of reincarnated past lives that are validated. but even ignoring that just from the anecdotal people say they have this experience. now even factoring out the important Mass psychology and personal psychology motivators for having a belief like this do you really scientifically feel satisfied that "no effect" interpretations explain everything? in other words even framing the existing phenomena in the weakest possible form you really feel scientifically satisfied to say with integrity that there's nothing there? that it's unsupported? I think in fact the unsupported is the bold claim to make that would require some strong evidence.