1. Flows along a critical path of dependent, salient and revelatory observation and query
2. Develops hypothesis through testable mechanism
3. Is incremental in risk of conjecture (does not stack conjectures)
4. Examines probative study in preference over reliable data
5. Seeks reliable falsification over reliable inductive inference
6. Seeks reliable consilience over reliable abductive inference
7. Does not prematurely make a claim to consensus in absence of available deduction
8. Shares results, limitations, open issues, next questions, next steps and replication guidance.
All of this can be applied to any erstwhile 'spirit realm'; although not as easily as say, a materials testing lab for instance. So in my view - both an exceptional realm or any participants therein, are not out of reach of science. If fact, once a sponsor has demonstrated compelling evidence of plurality in argument (here, the possibility that material monism is only one idea valid for consideration) then science should make it a priority to study 'ephemeral phenomena'. However certain forces have mandated that we are not allowed to study such things as a society. To wit:
The Tricks of Obfuscation
1. They falsely contend that something must be repeatable-on-demand, before it can be studied.
2. They falsely contend that evidence must be reliable first, before it can be studied.
3. They falsely contend that all forms of eyewitness testimony are unreliable.
4. Functional versus enforced abductive science. This is laid out by a fake skeptic named Steven Novella (Steven Novella, MD; MedPage Today, June 28, 2017; https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/alternativemedicine/66316) in his quote below pertaining to study of alternative medicine (something even more 'likely' than spirits in his view); however is doctrine for this entire Cabal of fakers.
You have to look at prior plausibility. [Even if one observes an interesting phenomenon or measurement], if one contends that 'this is interesting, and should be studied'. No, it shouldn't be studied any further. It's been studied more than enough to reject this highly improbable hypothesis to begin with.
Note the implication of 'been studied more than enough' - this is a circular form of false preemptive inference called praedicate evidentia; reasoning wherein 'it should not be studied, because study will prove that it is false, therefore it should not be studied'.
5. Arguing like Children. Faking skeptics (and immature arguers that patrol or attempt to derail forums like this), follow along this script. They do not discuss the material at hand, they habitually prefer instead discuss 'you'. The formula of an arguing child: it is never about mere disagreement. Their 'disagreement' is that you should not even be allowed to speak in the first place. The formula almost always falls along this outline:
The Ten Characteristics of Arguing Like a Child
i. nulla infantis - 'nuh uhhh, shut up.' Fancy ways of simply issuing a baby's 'no'. Usually accompanied by a code-phrased demand that their opponent be silent.
ii. Herculean Burden of Proof - yelling 'prove it prove it! Unsubstantiated claim!' to all manner of philosophy, personal experience and things they know are impossible or would take a 1700 page treatise to prove.
iii. Focused on Irrelevance - fails to grasp the difference between a point which is relevant, salient or critical path, from one which is not. Doesn't care, just needed to feign subject competence.
iv. Fail to Recognize Their Own Argument - when their argument is given back to them verbatim and by quote (without straw man), they do not recognize it, or accuse you of crafting a straw man.
v. Canned Apothegm - lead in is often first accompanied by an authoritative claim to simplicity or other canned catch-phrase they were taught by a club inside which they are attempting to increase their rank.
vi. Lazy/Silver Platter - typically know very little about the topic and then want you to do their research for them; like a bad lab partner or project worker.
vii. Threatened by Competence - they grow angry if their opponent incidentally cites personal professional or life experience in the subject - the inappropriate response often revealing an inner wound for which they are covering.
viii. Insulting & Demeaning (The Actual Goal) - their cleverness is invested into a campaign of insulting or demeaning you, woven into the fabric of their argument. They will usually begin the insults on the third exchange. They will float their 'PhD' or other comparative appeal to authority in some manner. They think they are too smart for you to detect this. As they age in cynical behavior, the insults will come earlier and earlier in the discussion process.
ix. non tu es - 'no, you are...'. Whatever you offer them in terms of critique they throw back in your face with a childish 'No, you are...'; however often wrapped up in a pretentious pleonasm in actual personal attack form, usually non-sequitur or straw man - and not an informal critique of method.
x. Slam Condemnation - they want to end the conversation with a coup de grâce not related to the critical path argument at hand - something to show how superior they are to you and how unacceptable you are, with your 'opinions'.
6. Poison the Well - What these things in effect do, is to kill the social discussion, and kill the science. It creates a toxic environment for scientific discourse. Most scientists do not want to exist in this type of environment. So they stay away - and that is, of course, the intent of the faking skeptic or immature arguer to begin with (whether they know it or not).
It is a form of circular appeal to authority, combined with hyperbole about our knowledge or ability to obtain it:
praedicate evidentia – any of several forms of exaggeration or avoidance in qualifying a lack of evidence, logical calculus or soundness inside an argument. A trick of preemptive false-inference, which is usually issued in the form of a circular reasoning along the lines of ‘it should not be studied, because study will prove that it is false, therefore it should not be studied’ or 'if it were true, it would be studied'.
praedicate evidentia – hyperbole in extrapolating or overestimating the gravitas of evidence supporting a specific claim, when only one examination of merit has been conducted, insufficient hypothesis reduction has been performed on the topic, a plurality of data exists but few questions have been asked, few dissenting or negative studies have been published, or few or no such studies have indeed been conducted at all.
praedicate evidentia modus ponens – any form of argument which claims a proposition consequent ‘Q’, which also features a lack of qualifying modus ponens, ‘If P then’ premise in its expression – rather, implying ‘If P then’ as its qualifying antecedent. This as a means of surreptitiously avoiding a lack of soundness or lack of logical calculus inside that argument; and moreover, enforcing only its conclusion ‘Q’ instead. A ‘There is not evidence for…’ claim made inside a condition of little study or full absence of any study whatsoever.
T.E.S has realised that a great deal of science covers up its limitations and protects certain ideas that lack evidence by using rhetorical tricks. I agree with him.
He has developed a complicated classification scheme which he uses to shoot holes in faulty arguments. The only problem is that reading just one of his sentences can require multiple trips to GOOGLE and considerable thought!
If you select a word or phrase of his, and right click on it, you will find you can select a menu item to GOOGLE it. Using this method you can achieve the necessary industrial scale GOOGLing needed to understand what he writes!