[dmacfour]

Originally Posted by EdmundJohnstone

Will science ever accept spirituality in terms of souls and afterlife?

Will science ever accept objective verified proof? It seems that science doesen't accept at all subjective proof like reincarnations, NDE, mediums communication, even if they are verified and confirmed

Why doesen't it accept reincarnation verified evidence, NDE, and mediums? Can there be a hidden reason behind not admitting this?

Some of the research you're probably referring to helped expose just how low the bar for "verified evidence" was in the field of psychology (and science in general):

In psychology, the origin of the reproducibility crisis is often linked to Daryl Bem’s (2011) paper which reported empirical evidence for the existence of “psi”, otherwise known as Extra Sensory Perception (ESP). This paper passed through the standard peer review process and was published in the high impact Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The controversial nature of the findings inspired three independent replication studies, each of which failed to reproduce Bem’s results. However, these replication studies were rejected from four different journals, including the journal that had originally published Bem’s study, on the grounds that the replications were not original or novel research. They were eventually published in PLoS ONE (Ritchie, Wiseman, & French 2012). This created controversy in the field, and was interpreted by many as demonstrating how publication bias impeded science’s self-correction mechanism. In medicine, the origin of the crisis is often attributed to Ioannidis’ (2005) paper “Why most published findings are false”. The paper offered formal arguments about inflated rates of false positives in the literature—where a “false positive” result claims a relationship exists between phenomena when it in fact does not (e.g., a claim that consuming a drug is correlated with symptom relief when it in fact is not). Ioannidis’ (2005) also reported very low (11%) empirical reproducibility rates from a set of pre-clinical trial replications at Amgen, later independently published by Begley and Ellis (2012). In all disciplines, the replication crisis is also more generally linked to earlier criticisms of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (e.g., Szucs & Ioannidis 2017), which pointed out the neglect of statistical power (e.g., Cohen 1962, 1994) and a failure to adequately distinguish statistical and substantive hypotheses (e.g., Meehl 1967, 1978). This is discussed further below.

The long and short of it is up until recently, you could get away with taking advantage of statistical hacks to make absolutely anything look significant. This was just as true for accepted psychological theory as it was for the more fringe stuff like ESP or reincarnation. The ESP research was not only not replicable, but it exposed that most mainstream results were not replicable.