> Science should prove or disprove some phenomena to be sure that is either true or false, No. Absolutely not. This is what I am talking about, a failure to

> Science should prove or disprove some phenomena to be sure that is either true or false, No. Absolutely not. This is what I am talking about, a failure to understand what science is on the most basic of levels. You don't prove a null hypothesis. Expecting proof of a null hypothesis is flat out retarded, you only disprove them. Without accepting null hypothesises until they are disproved, that is to say, without any functional sense of skepticism, you fall down the rabbit hole of believing all sorts of religious, supernatural, and pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Have you disproved leprechauns? Xenu? Have you disproved the notion that I am in fact a god, descended from Mount Olympus on a mission to take out the Reptilian Queen? Sane, rational, people do not expect these claims to be disproved. They expect them to be proved, and reject them until they are.