taiji2's complaint

I would say that science gets to define evidence.They have a couple of centuries of experience, and have learned a great deal in that time about how to find and treat evidence. Testing is just one of the methods they use.This is 180 degrees from how religions and most philosophers deal with things.Along these lines, "dogma" is often defined as a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.What I see you doing is trying to chip away at the scientific method enough so that your particular dogma, while lacking scientific evidence, might be included.

Easy!Rely on magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff.To this list I would also add philosophy and theology. As Heinlein noted:

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

​

Robert A. Heinlein