So you're unfamiliar with the accessibility/observability distinction which explains why you think I think science is only about observability. That which responds to neither, e.g. a variably-conceived, Swiss army knife God-of-the-gaps, is suspiciously indistinguishable from an imaginative fancy.

Don't minimize the interdimensional, nature-transcendent prismatic unicorn-being from Saturn's third alignment that is immanent of my bread cupboard and transmits secret thoughts to me about others as merely an "unobservable" in the same category as a fucking electron or gravitational wave, please.

"Us"?

If I remember correctly the thread is full of your logical tergiversations, extraordinary confidence in those tergiversations, and selective blindness about how, to a rational audience, those tergiversations are delusional cringecore. You're a relatively typical social media arguer. Congratulations.

Fuck off.

Insect.

What article was I summarizing? What are my qualifications? Was the post a proof or merely anecdotal evidence? You have absolutely no idea. You can't even begin to summon the barest rudiments of a guess. So kindly do something useful and fuck off to business you're better equipped to judge.