I mean repeatable in it's scientific definition. In that anyone, anywhere, could repeat it and have the same results.
While this would certainly be useful it does not describe, in total,
repeatability.
If the subject is "Cold Fusion" then, yes, anyone anywhere should be able to produce the same result. If we're talking paleontology then we're more trying to repeat the proponent's congregation of the facts and seeing if the analysis applied is sufficient. This also is repeatability.
Stories of your walking on water is more the second type. If the scenario cannot be scrutinized for viability with no independent corroborating evidence, no supporting facts, you have no evidence.
But further, if you can walk on water in Paris then you should be able to walk on water in Phoenix where I can watch and film it. If you cannot or will not then, it matters not how many people think they saw the original feat, you have nothing. The eye-witness testimony, notoriously bad to begin with, is so weak as to be non-existent.
If there is one thing
Fatima taught us it is that even a crowd of thousands can succumb to mass hysteria and vouch witness to an event that only one little girl says she saw.
I think we can agree that if it is up to someone's 'will' if something physically happens or not, then it is not repeatable in a scientific way.
No, I do not agree.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.