I bet you believe lots of "science".
I bet you believe that there is no aether, because M-M disproved it. But, if you look into it, they didn't disprove anything and barely made enough readings to call the thing they did an experiment. So, I bet you have all kinds of things in your mind that are categorized in the "proven" category, but are anything but.

I bet we have very different attitudes towards proof. Seems like what you are saying is that the thing you want to be true is true until proven otherwise. That's not how proof or evidence should work. I try to suspend belief in anything until the evidence is really a lot. When I talk about the knowledge we might have gathered about the world, I often use phrases like "It seems" and "is likely" and "appears to".

The legitimate questions we should be asking about any assertion (like the ones you are making) is not if they have been disproved, but have they been proven. There are many assertions that are not yet disproved, but this doesn't make them more likely to be true. If I say that the ether is made of green unicorns that are playing ping pong with all the particles and are farting out our consciousness, you will not be able to decisively disprove my claim, yet this is not a reasonable claim to believe, right?

We cannot prove out of body experiences, however many people have them and are totally changed by them. The effects they have on people are very real and quite easily measurable. But the out of body experiences cannot be proven. But, once you have had one, you cannot deny it.

You are contradicting yourself. If you have reliable measurable effects, that's something you can study and start building a case around. The things is, they don't seem to be reliable. You are talking about how little data this or that scientific experiment might have, but I bet you can't point to a larger data set that supports your beliefs even just barely. You are talking about how little data "the other side" has while you think anecdotal evidence is sufficient to prove your point. Have you noticed that inconsistency? Or if you have larger and more reliable data sets and experiments, then please share them, so instead of talking about opinions, we can talk about evidence? I bet you don't have any reliable and repeatable evidence, do you?

I'd like to point out that I really don't have a horse in this race, what I care about is learning more about reality. I would find it quite comforting and pleasant to learn that we have eternal souls and that there are other realms of being that come after death. I want my consciousness to exist forever. But if there isn't enough evidence to support those claims, it is not reasonable for me to believe them, even if it would be pleasant, fulfilling and comforting.

A scientist who was doing brain surgery proved that our senses are not delayed.
You can go read up on this real mind bending findings.

Sure, where? Who's the scientist. And more importantly how many other scientists have repeated this experiments and have confirmed his findings. You realize you talking about a physics-defying result. If that's confirmed that a Nobel Prize for the guy at the very least. Contrary to popular belief (or should I say conspiracy-theorist
level misconception), the scientific community loves and strives for findings that disprove what we initially thought was true. Scientists advance their carriers not by confirming things, but by proposing, discovering and confirming new things. Think of all the famous scientists. Virtually all of them found something new and had us discard a previous belief. Before Einstein we though motion is Newtonian, Einstein disprooved that and he was celebrated for it. Before the double-slit experiment, we though particles behaved in deterministic ways. But when we discovered that they don't, that was celebrated. So somebody showing instantaneous senses or information going back in time is somebody who would be really celebrated in the science community because that would advance our understanding.

I'm just pointing it out to preempt a "they-are-all-hiding-his-findings" argument.