There’s a fine line between blind belief, curiosity, and disbelief. When there’s evidence that something exists – but it still defies our attempts to explain or measure it. Then we should simply believe that something exists – but we cannot yet explain or measure it. I’ve seen evidence of “ghosts” first hand – enough to believe there’s something there. But I’m simply at a loss to explain it. There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging the existence of something you cannot yet explain.

Think about it. If I came up with a drug that conferred immortality to 1% of the population, the FDA could not approve it because it only works on 1% of the population. The null hypothesis would prevent them from believing that immortality exists simply because it did not work 99% of the time.

So, what is wrong with that case? The only thing, which is wrong, is that it does not fit the hypothesis that there are no miracles.

If by “love” you mean the strange, wonderful “tickling” sensation you sometimes (often?) feel in your chest when you look at your child or your life partner, this is presumably a physiological event, but considering our current tools and methods for scientific inquiry, trying to contrive the conditions that would be needed to record and measure this event objectively would be extremely difficult, bordering on inhumane or impossible. Still, anyone who has felt it knows that it happens. Those who haven’t felt it just have to decide for themselves whether the “inter-subjective agreement” among those who have should be accepted as sufficient evidence.

If by “love” you mean the willingness to act primarily for the benefit of others, even when this will yield only a deficit (or at least no direct benefit) to yourself, it’s easy enough to prove the existence of such behavior.

Yes they can. We can see which parts of the brain light up when people feel the emotion of love. One could make the argument that there is some sort of ethereal hippy rainbow love force floating around independently of our bodies but that’d take us right back to the null hypothesis and the burden of proof would be on the weed-blazing Trustafari.

Obviously Shermer’s asking for scientific proof. Who is going to provide that evidence? Scientists. People said, “Show me,” when referring to evolution, electricity, the atom, and whether or not the world is round.

The idea that the null hypothesis somehow negates scientists from asking questions is silly.

Then, Mr Shermer, start believing :)
At least one amputated leg has been healed: Miguel Juan Pellicer lost his leg after an accident in 1637 and got it back in 1640. AFAIK it is a well documented miracle.
What do you think?