You see, the problem which I discovered shortly after getting into this long session of repeating the same thing over and over, and reading the same thing over and over, is simply this: what I am trying to discuss is something that lies outside of the boundaries of current known science. To argue the case for this current scientific paradigm, a prepubescent school girl could easily misspell "quantum physics" in google and get all the material she needed. There is no evidence and no proof for those concepts that lie outside of the framework of this paradigm. That's exactly the point. If you had studied the "history of science" as much as you claim to, you would know that all paradigm shifts have been as a result of some usually small, radical group of people that defied the current mainstream beliefs, by proposing theories and ideas that went completely contrary to what was accepted and "proven". Scientific progress is not made by burrying your legs in several feet of mud and jerking off on the faces of the other idiots around you, but by actually trying to discover something NEW.

Here's a novel suggestion: instead of BLINDLY believing in everything your professors teach you, why not try to think critically instead, and realize that NOT everything you read in reports is actually true. You know, I heard that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, from what I've read, there were multiple sources of intelligence....

I'd be willing to bet that you have NEVER conducted any kind of experiment dealing with quantum physics, astrophysics, string theory, whatever.

Yeah, it's a great skill to be able to read and take notes on what someone else has written, but when you start to close the walls in around you take everything for granted (that's called faith, darling), then you are no different than a religious zealot.

Denying even the possibility of the existence of some kind of phenomena that are not detectable (yet) by scientific instruments just means that our technology is lagging behind our ability to conceptualize the possible.

I suggest you take your sense of intellectual superiority and place it squarely in your ass next to your head, your blind faith, narrow field of view and your recycled, boring arguments--I'm sure there's plenty of space.

As to the cop-out, that's fine. Hearing your repeat over and over that science is never proven wrong, it evolves, blah blah blah..Yeah, yeah I know. That's great. There's more to science than being able to prove or disprove something. If I'm not mistaken, the point is to try and perceive as much as possible, using tested ideas as stepping stones. You're missing the next step.

As for me, cop-out or not, this argument IS totally fruitless--to be interested in an argument, I have to be learning something new or opening my eyes to a new perspective. I've heard all of this many times before during the undergraduate process--thus my quest for something new... but thanks anyway.