Is there a substantial difference between New Age 'spirituality' and err... old age 'spirituality'? They seem overall to be pretty similar to me -- vague references to unanswered questions and something elseness, often involving avoidance of the critical faculties.
What exactly is the difference in your opinion?
I accept this but it still means that science is the best mechanism available to achieve maximum understanding. As I mentioned before, if being at one with the universe is the goal of spirituality then one can surely not ignore science, as it provides the best model of the true nature of the universe available at any particular time.
If one rejects or ignores science on favour of 'spirituality' then one risks being at one with an arbitrary delusion or guess. If one wants true spirituality then use science to understand better what one is being a part of.
Well, no. Of course, it is true that there are people (yes, including some scientists) who treat certain theories that way (i.e. with a kind of religious zeal) but it is nevertheless a perversion of the scientific method. The proper scientific method is to treat all theories as suspect, accepted as true only until proven false.
This includes even theories that are well proven and observed in reality, such as evolution. Evolution is taken as fact in practical terms by most scientists and most people because it has much supporting evidence and virtually no contrary evidence. If many scientists react with anger when evolution is questioned, it is (usually!) not for pseudo-religious reasons but because those who question evolution very commonly come up with, at best, pseudo-scientific arguments that hold no rational plausibility.
To the extent that this is true at all, one might observe that (a) humans are humans and it is perhaps understandable if they get attached to pet theories[1], and (b) science is still, despite this, the best way there is of objectively discovering the true nature of reality. The foibles of human nature do not invalidate science; instead science is the tool that humans use to neutralise the foibles of human nature.
I said "to the extent that this is true" because I don't think it is all that true overall.
I cannot agree with this. It does not match my experience of science or scientists in general. However, even if true, as I observed above, science still works. As I said, science is the tool we use to overcome the subjective nature of humans. Demonstrably, it works.
But what exactly do you think this proves? Does it show that these particular scientists all had closed minds or does it show that they were not easily scammed? I know which I think is more likely, overall.
Were there UFOs flying around outside? How believable, on the balance of probabilities, was the claim that there were such things happening outside?
Footnote:-
1: Which is why the scientific method is (or should be) open and collaborative. It is why papers are published. It is why multiple individuals and groups can and do test competing theories, meaning that any individual's or group's subjective preference to certain theories is balanced out by those who do not share those particular prejudices or preconceptions. This "many eyes" approach has been replicated in the software world with open source software.