doma, I'm totally good with notions that events that are not currently well described in a causal sense do or do not indeed occur.
At some point I am struck with certain truths.
In WWI with body parts flying everywhere and all sorts of injury subsequently exploited by bacteria .... that in one big fat over the top B52 strike with nothing but mega kilos of penicillin that event would have helped those folks, in that moment ... and that is a truth.
You, of the occult, may well feel derision the second I say the occult. No derision is intended. I work in the natural world, the material world and the one I and others can reliably reproduce. I think the world benefits from folks like me.
Then we have folks that work in the more confusing more difficult to reliably reproduce spaces of what I am generally calling the occult (not because it is off or incorrect, but that it does not subordinate itself to my material rules).
But we as humans, I hope, are rich in our thoughts, and it would be a fool for the - "natural world preservation of information" scientist such as myself (using, of course, the notion of scientist very liberally) and the more occult "I see these things, your explanations are not enough" - to be in conflict.
I will always seek causality, I will always seek preservation of information, should there be other things and other truths .... I look to you to carry that torch. My place is in the causal accountable stuff in/stuff out universe.
I've been told a certain bloke has a "good" golf swing or that a particular concoction reliably cures cancer.
I dispute neither. The swing is good. The remedy is good. I seek to describe what I can, and seek not to threaten others with what I observe or to have them go whack dog and describe my measured results as a function of the mood of some dna-thing on Pluto.
I'm totally good with anything anybody wants to say. And I am just as comfortable calling bullshit, bullshit.
| 
?