While traipsing through the literature on extra-physical perception of (for lack of a better term) the "greater reality," I decided to briefly touch on the question of science, and metaphysics...
This blog has ultimately focused on the question of what is perceivable, what is knowable, and what we can confidently conclude, of all that we perceive of phenomena "outside" our official one, is "real"--the essence of metaphysics.
If you are a dabbler researching UFOs, or a physician pondering NDEs, you will reach this crossroad, sooner or later... Because you eventually realize that what you are trying to understand has no analog in our official reality.
Science argues (not unpersuasively) that *everything* that we regard as supernatural can be *ultimately* explained as anomalies of perception. Science has a lot of support on its side. Historically, much of what we thought was supernatural has turned out to be "natural," once we understood the physical laws behind it. So, it's not unrealistic to expect that even our present mysteries will be "explained" in like fashion.
I somewhat agree with this position. What I personally believe, however--and I'm even willing to bet money on this--is that science will eventually validate supernatural phenomena--by expanding our view of what is "natural." One hundred years from now, we probably won't be arguing whether consciousness survives physical death (assuming our species survives). We will assume that it does. We'll be focused on other dilemmas.
In the meantime, science has a lot to contribute to this debate. Informed scientific speculation can identify known perceptive anomalies, faulty logic, shoddy research, and other biases and distortions. Those who claim allegiance to science can do better than tearing down thoughtful examinations of the phenomena on Wikipedia in guerrilla fashion. This is not science, but is what such attackers accuse people who study the phenomena of: unquestioned belief.