A few things.
I hope none of you have to ever be in a situation where you have to see teams of medical specialists after specialists because you or a loved one is suffering from an ailment that borders on science's current level of understanding and competence.
But the operational idea:
Clearly, logically, the latter is more likely to be true (by several orders of magnitude). We can rule out ....... to begin with based on simple logic about what is more vs. less likely.
Doesn't always quite cut it.
Sure it can be a simple short-cut for the lazy man.
But if your life or the life of a loved one was on the line, I'd bet you wouldn't want doctors presuming only based on "logic" and "what is most likely."
Especially if without anyone's knowledge the situation was not the one that would be "most likely," but maybe even of the rarest variety, that if left in the assumption of the norm case, would mean the loss of life.
It doesn't require too much research to be able to find case after case where falling back on the "more v. less likely" finds its limitation.
Even limit your search to current medical diagnosis alone.....
Hence what I presume to be references in former posts to funding and priorities for "more research."
Combined with the view:
"they will eventually be discovered an explained, and become another part of our knowledge about the universe....."
is a nice little dream to portion out to someone else,
but I bet you wouldn't want your doctors, or the doctors of your child, to throw that out concerning finding some treatment to save a life from a rare illness.
I have no dog in the fight either way about ghosts and such,
but I also can quickly see the limitations of what science can do, especially in context,
to living during a time even now where scientific understanding about countless things is still in the stone ages.
Concerning the statement:
And how about the idea that these are transitory phenomena and that they are hard to investigate? Not true. We have the equipment and know how to find evidence of neutrinos, gravitational waves, and planets in orbit around distant stars. Really, we can't figure out how to tell if we are being visited by space ships?
I don't care to feel like I need to defend the contrary,
even what may seem absurd notion of "space ships",
but I do caution the arrogance that is in the root premise of the above statement.
Although relatively speaking we may be further ahead of our predecessors in history as far as tech and discoveries,
if scientists don't have a solid dose of humility when evaluating matters,
they might just fall into the traps that hinders true science.
Human history is ripe with examples of arrogance that hindered investigations and discoveries because "we were already so convinced we were familiar with the issue".....
So yes, especially in matters of degree,
one may consider the "likely v. unlikely" in investigations into phenomena.
We can hope that authentic investigation and science with integrity will pursue areas until better discoveries are made.....
And we can hold a bit of confidence that we now are in a better state to evaluate some matters than maybe those of the past......
However, none of that in the name of science,
should give excuse for discounting any passions to investigate any field further utilizing what means science has at its reach at present and considering that science in the future might necessarily be even more well equipped to deal with matters,
that we at the moment may have no real clue about....
I'm sure any one of us would rather doctors spend efforts further investigating our case,
especially if there is even a hint that it entails matters where medical science still has much to learn,
rather than discounting the rare possibility on the basis that "clearly the most likely" is always the case.....
Especially if it entails matters of life and death.
Sure "science" can be all "safe" and "sterile" and hide in the lab.
But honestly we deal with the limitations of the "scientific method" every day,
and we can't just think it is this perfect superhero that can always give us a supreme predictive knowledge of what is myth and what is real, without a thorough examination into the matter.
And that is without need for any slight to how science works or how scientists conduct themselves.....