Did they ask you to prove that you had your experience, or that your experience meant what you think it did? They are too different things. We can acknowledge that a person had a very intense experience of an alien in their bedroom without agreeing that an alien actually was in their bedroom.
Do all academics have the characteristics you discuss, or just a subset? A scientist would certainly be interested in testing whether the experience you had represented an internal or external event. Would a professor of literature? (I don’t know - I would suspect the reaction would not be so universal.)
This is totally incorrect. A theory that has been disproven has been disproven. A hypothesis might be called unscientific if it is unfalsifiable or perhaps based on invalid observations. The theory of ether, though untrue, is not unscientific. It made excellent predictions.
This accusation of dogma where no dogma exists might be one of your problems.
There is no such rule in science. All our observations are personal evidence to some extent. However, the question is: evidence of what? While you might think your experience is evidence of contact with god, we might check to see if everyone has the same impression of god. If the thing experienced is directly related to the culture of the person experiencing it, perhaps something else is going on. We can’t assume that, but if we are able to reproduce a spiritual experience through drugs of electrical stimulation of the brain, we might hypothesize a non-spiritual cause of the experience. We’d not be rejecting the experience in any way - in fact we’d be confirming it. We’re just saying that there is an explanation for it besides God. This doesn’t even say God didn’t do it, just that God didn’t necessarily do it.
There are two fallacies here. The first is that these observations do get repeated over and over again. Not by everone, but even one person consistently falsifying them would be big news. As far back as 1969 freshmen physics students were reproducing the Michelson Morley experiment with lasers shot around a lab. The second fallacy is that science is not provisional. All results are open to refutation at any time. A friend of mine had the unfortunate experience of disproving a physics formula everyone thought was true in the course of doing his dissertation. Alas, the result was not good enough to get one based on the disproof, so he had to find another topic. But no one was ready to burn him at the stake for overturning this small bit of dogma.
) To levitate, or have telekinetic powers, we would have to expend the energy required to lift something, and to be able to exert a force on the thing. Picking up something with a magnet is levitation, and we understand how it works. But our brains don’t produce enough energy to levitate ourselves. If someone could prove they could do this, we’d have to find the power source somewhere. But to the best of our understanding, levitation is impossible, and would be impossible on any planet in any solar system. Yeah, if we were on an asteroid a small muscle twitch might send us into orbit, but I assume that is not what you mean.