I said deterministic, not consistent. For example, exactly when an atom will undergo radioactive decay isn't deterministic, but if you observe enough of them, you can match your observations with your theory's probability distribution.

I just get the sneaky suspicion that you're letting your biases get in the way of scientific curiosity.

Just how many cultures had things that may be called deities talk to them? As far as I can tell, almost all Earth cultures have had that. We're talking about the Oracle of Delphi in here - and according to lore, was divinations (as in Divine messages). So, again, I ask - what's really going on? And this wasn't the only one.

And what's more curious and interesting is how durable groups that do occult stuff are. John Dee was Queen Elizabeth's court magister, and created the whole Enochian system in the 1570s. Of course, this can be glossed over due to them not really understanding science. But we have a magical heritage even way before Dee to now.

And infamous occultist, Aleister Crowley, even said that "Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will." Those are certainly things to inquire - can we see effects? How do they work? How do they not work? Can others sense them? How do we go about sensing it?

Long story short, I see that there's something there. And a whole lot of other people do as well. Enough anecdotes starts to equal a study. And what's the worst that will happen? That I fail? (And even if I fail, still provides more data that wasn't done before; hence a success.)

I'd have nothing against a proper scientific experiment to see whether or not magic is real. But the scientific method absolutely requires falsifiability, so if you can't come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, then you're doing pseudoscience.

I notice you are using science and the scientific method interchangeably.

How can science study magic without knowing whether it is falsifiable first? Would that require them to do potentially unscientific/pseudoscientific things not becoming of a proper scientist? If we allowed that, next thing they'd be thinking without dogmatic constraints!

It's fine to do science without knowing up front whether something is falsifiable. One of the steps in the scientific method is to formulate a hypothesis. You can go up to that step even before you figure out whether you have something falsifiable; you just can't go past it until you do.

> I said deterministic, not consistent. For example, exactly when an atom will undergo radioactive decay isn't deterministic, but if you observe enough of them, you can match your observations with your theory's probability distribution.

Can you pull of this same trick with humans, across all their behaviors?