Weird Convoluted Rules of the Self-Described "Scientific Thinker"

During the Middle Ages, you could shut down many a conversation by simply claiming that believing some particular thing wouldn't be Christian. Around 1930 in Russia you could shut down many a conversation by claiming that some particular idea was "counter-revolutionary." Nowadays, when a particular possibility is raised, someone may try to exclude such a possibility by saying, "Yes, you could believe that, but to think that wouldn't be scientific." But what are the thought rules of people who describe themselves as "scientific thinkers"? It turns out they do not have any straightforward rules of thought. 

The  word "scientific" can be defined in many different ways. A stringent way to define "scientific" is "based on or limited to that which has been observed." But clearly our self-described "scientific thinkers" are not limiting themselves to that which has been observed. The world of academic scientists is an extremely speculative world in which many professors seem to spend as much time speculating about things as they do rigorously observing things. Our self-described "scientific thinkers" give their blessing to a host of speculative ideas such as extraterrestrials, abiogenesis, the evolution of dramatic new biological innovations by random mutations, the multiverse, string theory, dark matter, dark energy and so forth.  So it is clear that when they describe themselves as "scientific thinkers" such people do not mean "limited only to what has been observed." 

Could it be that by calling themselves "scientific thinkers" certain people mean that they accept all that has been established by reliable observations? No, because such people tend to reject or avoid studying huge numbers of observations reported by reliable witnesses,  particularly any observations suggesting ideas such as paranormal abilities or a soul or life after death.  Such people may pay lip service to a "believe according to the evidence" principle, but do not follow it, often believing in things supported by no robust evidence, while disbelieving in things supported by mountains of robust evidence. 

Could it be that by calling themselves "scientific thinkers" certain people mean that they restrict their claims purely to claims about physical things? It seems not, for such people will frequently try to advance explanations of things that are mental, such as thought, memory, feeling, consciousness and so forth.  Could it be that by calling themselves "scientific thinkers" certain people mean that they base their opinions on data, and not on authority? No, apparently not, for such people seem to very much kowtow to the authority figures of academia and one or more authority figures of the past. 

Could it be that by calling themselves "scientific thinkers" certain people mean that they restrict their claims purely to claims about the physical and the human, excluding all claims about superhuman power? No, because such people have no hesitation about evoking god-like superhuman powers. They sometimes claim that the galaxy is filled with extraterrestrial god-like powers, the idea being that there are beings from civilizations that appeared many thousands or millions of years ago. We are told that such beings may have powers that may  seem to us just like magic, because of the "law" proposed by Arthur C. Clarke that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  The same person wrote a science fiction novel describing extraterrestrials evolving into creatures of pure energy, and those who believe in mind uploading may think of a mind as mere patterns of energy that do not necessarily have to stay chained to a body.  So it seems our self-described "scientific thinkers" are quite ready to believe in god-like immaterial powers that might influence mankind (although they would scold anyone using the word "spirits" to describe such powers that sound like spirits). 

Could it be that by calling themselves "scientific thinkers" certain people mean that they exclude all claims of immortality? No, such people sometimes express interest in the idea that people will one day be able to attain immortality by uploading their minds into a computer. 

Could it be that the real hallmark of people calling themselves "scientific thinkers" is that they believe that the origin of Earth life and human life was purely natural, without any design involved? No, because such people seem quite ready to believe in something called directed panspermia, under which earthly life is explained as being planted here by extraterrestrials. 

Could it be that the real hallmark of people calling themselves "scientific thinkers" is that they believe only in things that are mathematically probable? No, because such people tend to believe in a great abundance of fantastically improbable miracles of luck involving random mutations causing great wonders of biological organization, events that seem as mathematically improbable as someone throwing a deck of cards into the air, and the deck forming into a house of cards.  

Could it be that the real hallmark of people calling themselves "scientific thinkers" is that they completely trust the observations of distinguished scientists? No, because there are very many such observations they refuse to believe in, such as observations of the paranormal by distinguished scientists such as Sir William Crookes, Alfred Russel Wallace, Camille Flammarion, Professor Joseph Rhine and Professor William Gregory. 

Could it be that the real hallmark of people calling themselves  "scientific thinkers" is that they believe only in recently formulated ideas of reality, rather than ideas originated long ago? No, such thinkers tend to be inordinately addicted to the ideas of nineteenth century biology, ideas that remind us of notions of random accidental human origins that are thousands of years old, such as the ideas of Democritus and Lucretius. 

Think of the strange rules of such people claiming to be "scientific thinkers." In their social circles you will be applauded if you suggest that some super-advanced extraterrestrials (belonging to some  civilization millions of years old) are trying to communicate using radio dishes (a twentieth-century technology their civilization would have developed millions of years ago). But you will be condemned the moment you suggest that such god-like beings might have developed the power to transmit thoughts directly to our minds. You will be blessed if you say we should spend more money looking for radio signals from extraterrestrials (despite the complete failure of countless well-funded attempts), but condemned if you suggest that radio signals might come from a mysterious realm that could be a realm of the dead (despite Raudive's reported success at such an attempt).  In their social circles you will be condemned if you believe there is a single unseen realm of existence inhabited by spirits, but you will be applauded if you believe in some multiverse infinity of unseen universes.  

In their social circles no one will object if you suggest that maybe visiting extraterrestrials might communicate by sending see-through holograms into our homes, but you will be fiercely criticized if you suggest that see-though human forms may arise from some source other than visiting extraterrestrials.  In their social circles no one will object too much if you believe that all observed matter is just a computer illusion generated by extraterrestrials simulating our existence, but you will be scorned if you simply suggest that all such matter truly physically exists but that it cannot explain our minds or human origins. In such social circles you will be warmly applauded if you speculate about design being the cause of some slightly odd distant speck in telescopes, but bitterly condemned if you suggest some almost infinitely-harder-to-naturally-explain biological wonders in all of us are the product of design.  In their social circles you will be scorned if a great body of evidence compels you to say that you will have some future life after you die, but you will not be scorned if you claim that you are currently living some infinity of lives because of all the copies of you in parallel universes (an extremely silly idea favored by some professors despite no evidence for it). 

Looking for some overriding thought principle of those describing themselves as "scientific thinkers," no such principle can be found.  Their only thought principle seems to be: you can believe in or speculate about anything that a certain favored group of people (mainly certain cocksure male professors and their followers) like to believe in or speculate about these days, but you should scorn and disbelieve in any ideas that enrage such people (particularly any ideas suggesting that there exist souls or spirits or some purpose to the universe, ideas which they particularly scorn and despise). Trying to firmly grasp what such people mean by "scientific thinking" is like trying to grasp a handful of moonlight.  

It seems that the term "scientific" has become so socially entangled and conformist and political and wobbly that nothing very clear is stated when you claim that your thought is "scientific." So rather than having the goal of being a "scientific thinker," it might be better to have goals such as being able to truthfully make statements like this:

"My statements are accurate, well-reasoned and mathematically reasonable."

"My assertions are well supported by observations."

"My claims are not discredited by any observations."

Birth of a typical self-described "scientific thinker"