How is it rational to discredit something because of inaccuracies and criteria that do not apply?

This is an extension of my previous question. I will continue with answers from my previous question. "Dark matter doesn't cease to exist when someone else looks for it. It's always there. Anyone can measure it." In this case, someone showed not knowing what I was talking about, and chose to... show more This is an extension of my previous question. I will continue with answers from my previous question.

"Dark matter doesn't cease to exist when someone else looks for it. It's always there. Anyone can measure it."

In this case, someone showed not knowing what I was talking about, and chose to not admit it. Dark Matter is a theorized type of matter that is believed to be there because it has gravity and it would explain difficulties in other scientific theories. It cannot be seen, nor studied, but is believed to be there because something there has gravity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter...

I obviously am not the best at explaining scientific method. I see my argument was dismissed over my views on the method rather then the obvious. I also see that someone is pointing out the scientific method's steps.

If ghosts do not exist because we cannot drag them into labs and perform tests that can be repeated with exact results, then I argue of other things, by that criteria do not exist either.

Dark matter and dark energy are considered scientific. Except we can't actual study them.
Any scientific based theory where it explains the creation of energy violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. (Less there is an exception to this I have not heard of yet.)
Extinct animals, especially sea animals, are believed to be extinct because there is no evidence they're not. Coelacanth's proved that animals can be mistook for extinct. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colacanth)
Quantum Physics, which has had to be explained to me, is levels of contradictory that I wouldn't know where to begin.
Explanations for things, "based on science," that are based on what's more culturally acceptable. The Sphinx and water damage comes to mind especially.

How is it that anything labeled "science" regardless of how absurd, is more valid then the concept of studying something that cannot be easily studied nor explained? Not everything can be dragged into a lab and replicated. Isn't it possible that there are things, paranormal or not, that cannot be studied in a lab?
7 answers 7