Is There Credible Evidence Supporting Psychic Phenomena?

[Ivan Seeking]

Just to refine the point a bit, from what I have seen, all research done assumes that any so-called psychic phenomena can be produced on demand. We have no means to address what people claim to experience - psychic events - on only one, or rare occasion, in their daily lives. We assume that any such claims are explained as coincidence, but we have no way to know if there is a signal below the noise.

I hardly think a lack of scientific evidence can be cited as grounds for intellectual dismissal when we have never devised a means of testing for any such evidence.

Whether it be claims of UFOs, ghosts, psychic events, the legend of the milky sea, sprites or jets, ball lightning or earthquake lights, transient events that cannot be produced on demand are the most difficult to qualify.

 

[Mammo]

Just to refine the point a bit, from what I have seen, all research done assumes that any so-called psychic phenomena can be produced on demand. We have no means to address what people claim to experience - psychic events - on only one, or rare occasion, in their daily lives. We assume that any such claims are explained as coincidence, but we have no way to know if there is a signal below the noise.

I hardly think a lack of scientific evidence can be cited as grounds for intellectual dismissal when we have never devised a means of testing for any such evidence.

Whether it be claims of UFOs, ghosts, psychic events, the legend of the milky sea, sprites or jets, ball lightning or earthquake lights, transient events that cannot be produced on demand are the most difficult to qualify.

Well said.

 

[ZapperZ]

Just to refine the point a bit, from what I have seen, all research done assumes that any so-called psychic phenomena can be produced on demand. We have no means to address what people claim to experience - psychic events - on only one, or rare occasion, in their daily lives. We assume that any such claims are explained as coincidence, but we have no way to know if there is a signal below the noise.

I hardly think a lack of scientific evidence can be cited as grounds for intellectual dismissal when we have never devised a means of testing for any such evidence.

Whether it be claims of UFOs, ghosts, psychic events, the legend of the milky sea, sprites or jets, ball lightning or earthquake lights, transient events that cannot be produced on demand are the most difficult to qualify.

I disagree. We can't produce top quarks "on demand" either! And if there's anything that is "below noise level" after a gazillion particle collision, it is the discovery of the top quark in such collision. It is worse than finding a needle in a haystack!

But still, we found them! The people who make such proposal (note the source and origin) also make a series of verifiable, testable, and quantitative prediction on where to look for them IF they exist! This is how you try to convince people that such an entity exist, i.e. by producing a series of measurable outcomes that can be falsified. It isn't via telling everyone else that just because you haven't found it, it doesn't mean it isn't there!

So I am utterly done and thoroughly jaded with this continuing excuses as if it is science's fault that we haven't detected such paranormal phenomena. Somehow, when it comes to paranormal studies, the rules are turned the other way, where it is the rest of us who have to falsify the claims, and not those who are proposing it who have to show that it is valid. Why are they so special?

The search for something small and improbable are very weak excuses for the failure to verify these things in light of all the utterly difficult search we go through in high energy physics. And to elevate the existence of these paranormal phenomena to being legitimate just because we have no way of measuring it yet is ridiculous. I could easily speculate (isn't that what we're doing here?) that, once we KNOW how to measure them, then we can show they are not there (ref: the classical ether, EPR's hidden variables).

So yes, I know how to play this game as well.

Zz.

 

[Mammo]

I disagree. We can't produce top quarks "on demand" either! And if there's anything that is "below noise level" after a gazillion particle collision, it is the discovery of the top quark in such collision. It is worse than finding a needle in a haystack!

But still, we found them! The people who make such proposal (note the source and origin) also make a series of verifiable, testable, and quantitative prediction on where to look for them IF they exist! This is how you try to convince people that such an entity exist, i.e. by producing a series of measurable outcomes that can be falsified. It isn't via telling everyone else that just because you haven't found it, it doesn't mean it isn't there!

So I am utterly done and thoroughly jaded with this continuing excuses as if it is science's fault that we haven't detected such paranormal phenomena. Somehow, when it comes to paranormal studies, the rules are turned the other way, where it is the rest of us who have to falsify the claims, and not those who are proposing it who have to show that it is valid. Why are they so special?

The search for something small and improbable are very weak excuses for the failure to verify these things in light of all the utterly difficult search we go through in high energy physics. And to elevate the existence of these paranormal phenomena to being legitimate just because we have no way of measuring it yet is ridiculous. I could easily speculate (isn't that what we're doing here?) that, once we KNOW how to measure them, then we can show they are not there (ref: the classical ether, EPR's hidden variables).

So yes, I know how to play this game as well.

Zz.

Okay, so these are the two opposing views on the subject. Anything else is just going around in circles.

 

[Count Iblis]

I agree with ZapperZ. What has to be stressed is that any claim of a paranormal ability is, by definition, a claim that the known laws of physics can be violated. It is more than just a claim that someone can do something extraordinary.

Just postulating that there may be very weak effects that we don't know of yet then doesn't make the case that it is a priori plausible that such effects will not be compatible with the known laws of physics. To the contrary, when we investigate new phenomena, the prior assumption is always that the laws of physics as we know them apply (unless we do experiments at a regime where one would expect deviations).

So, if one wants to, a priori, question the validity of the laws of physics in processes involving the human brain and assume that everything beyond which has been directly measured in experiments can be questioned, then why not do the same for everything else?

Why not assume that the laws of thermodynamics are not valid inside the Sun? In case of the solar interior you have much more room for "paranormal events" than in case of the brain.

And why can't there exist a small planet in our Milky Way where the laws of physics are completely different? There could be a few of such "paranormal planets" and we would very likely never know about that.

 

[Mammo]

The counter argument to the above is given in post #129.

 

[Pithagoras]

I keep an open mind regarding psychic phenomena, especially as I have had experiences which made me question whether we are anywhere near understanding the full potential of our minds. I used to record my dreams, and occasionally one would occur that might be classed under the heading "psychic." I have read skeptics saying that we all dream all of the time and the odds are that sooner or later we will get lucky and predict something. However I would like to relate one precognitive dream that I experienced that really stood out for me, that I couldn't explain away by chance. At the time I lived and worked in the city and in my dream I found myself on a distinctive country road, very winding, with fields either side. I live in the UK and back then there was a well known radio/tv presenter called John Peel who got a lot of air time (he is now sadly deceased). In the dream I heard him commentating on the scene as I go along this road. I see police crime scene tape along the hedges, and I hear Peel saying that "the police are helping the elderly cross the road" or something to that effect. It was very vivid and when I woke up I wrote it down, as was my practice at the time, in a notebook I kept. Some time later I had to move to a new place of work and one day I drove with a colleague to see this place. It was outside town, in the country. As I turned off the carriageway I found myself on a windy country road, just like in my dream, which I immediately recalled. It was quite a surreal feeling. I had never been to this place before physically. What capped the day off however was later on that night I visited my parents and I was upstairs in the bathroom. My dad was watching tv in one of the bedrooms and next thing I hear John Peel's voice, obviously commentating on a program. Now this wasn't that unusual back then, he was on tv quite a lot. But what spooked me was when I went into the room to see what the program was about, it was to do with elderly people who were victims of crime, and how the police liased with them. So in my dream, several months prior there were 3 main things that stood out, the strange road, John Peel commentating my dream, and the link between the police and elderly people. Then months later all these things come together in the same day.

Possibly an even stranger dream involved someone coming to the door of my house. I looked out and saw a fellow I recognized from work there. I went down to answer but he had gone, but he had posted a "death certificate" through the letterbox. There was no name on it or anything. I awoke and recorded the dream as usual. The next day I was sitting in my office at my computer, by this stage I had forgot about the dream. Then I got an email from our main office in town (I was working at the out of town location by this stage) stating that a colleague had died the night before, and offering sympathy to his family and that. Just as I was reading it someone walked through the door of the office. It was the fellow in work who had left me the death notice in my dream. As "chance" would have it, he chose that day to come to our site, he was normally based in town. I hadn't seen or spoken to him before in months, he was a field engineer. The first words he said were about the guy who had died, asking had I heard.

I always had an open mind as to this kind of stuff from when I was a child, so I don't know if that made me more susceptible to these kind of experiences. I do find it hard to explain them away to be honest.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I keep an open mind regarding psychic phenomena...

... I do find it hard to explain them away to be honest.

Your two anecdotes are much like any I might offer from my own similar experiences in that the events you seem to have glimpsed ahead of time were not particularly important to you. You'd have forgotten both by now except for them having apparently been premonitored.

There's a certain notion this only clicks in when there's something important coming, but it seems that's not exclusively true.

I don't know what that might mean for any argument pro or con. Just something I noticed.

 

[Pithagoras]

Your two anecdotes are much like any I might offer from my own similar experiences in that the events you seem to have glimpsed ahead of time were not particularly important to you. You'd have forgotten both by now except for them having apparently been premonitored.

There's a certain notion this only clicks in when there's something important coming, but it seems that's not exclusively true.

I don't know what that might mean for any argument pro or con. Just something I noticed.

Of course the problem with dreams is they are subjective experiences... I can only offer to share a few of my experiences, but I don't really expect anyone to believe me. I wouldn't care to argue with anyone whether or not they were "real". My own perspective on what is real has definitely been influenced by them though. I don't believe in a Cartesian split between mind and matter, and saying that everything (including what we term mind) is actually an epiphenomenon of matter is just the reverse of saying that everything (including matter) is really the produce of mind. The mistake I feel is to elevate one aspect over the other... why can't they be simultaneous and complementary? For example when I look at a nice car I am looking at a combination of physical and chemical elements, yes, but I am also looking at a compendium of thought stored alongside those elements; the ideas that govern the design and function of the physical elements. Although I used the word govern this is really an illusion, the physical materials we use to give our ideas expression will gradually return to their natural state; nothing stands truly immortalized. Even what appears as empty space is in a constant state of flux.

Sorry just rambling away to myself there!

 

[Chronos]

Lucid dreams are not rare. They are, however, perplexing. They may appear to predict the future, but, only after the fact. Predicting the future would be a bad thing, IMO.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Lucid dreams are not rare. They are, however, perplexing. They may appear to predict the future, but, only after the fact. Predicting the future would be a bad thing, IMO.

That's my main suspicion about these dream premonitions: they are false memories of a prior dream created shortly after the event actually occurs.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I disagree. We can't produce top quarks "on demand" either! And if there's anything that is "below noise level" after a gazillion particle collision, it is the discovery of the top quark in such collision. It is worse than finding a needle in a haystack!

But still, we found them! The people who make such proposal (note the source and origin) also make a series of verifiable, testable, and quantitative prediction on where to look for them IF they exist! This is how you try to convince people that such an entity exist, i.e. by producing a series of measurable outcomes that can be falsified. It isn't via telling everyone else that just because you haven't found it, it doesn't mean it isn't there!

So I am utterly done and thoroughly jaded with this continuing excuses as if it is science's fault that we haven't detected such paranormal phenomena. Somehow, when it comes to paranormal studies, the rules are turned the other way, where it is the rest of us who have to falsify the claims, and not those who are proposing it who have to show that it is valid. Why are they so special?

The search for something small and improbable are very weak excuses for the failure to verify these things in light of all the utterly difficult search we go through in high energy physics. And to elevate the existence of these paranormal phenomena to being legitimate just because we have no way of measuring it yet is ridiculous. I could easily speculate (isn't that what we're doing here?) that, once we KNOW how to measure them, then we can show they are not there (ref: the classical ether, EPR's hidden variables).

So yes, I know how to play this game as well.

Zz.

Wow, I'm sorry I missed this one. Clearly part of the problem is that you see this as some kind of game. This is not a game.

You seem to be missing the point. With quarks, you can predict exactly the conditions that will produce them after so many collisions, right; or at least the odds that one will be produced after so many collisions? How does that compare to something like ball lightning, where we don't even know when or where to look? We don't know where to look or when to look because have no model to use for predictions. And for perspective, the anecdotal evidence for ball lightning is no better than the anecdotal evidence for ghosts [the claimed phenomena, not the interpretations of that phenomena], in fact it is probably far weaker, yet we accept the former to be real. How do we justify that one?

What would be your chance of finding a top quark if you had no model to use for finding them? The difference is that in particle physics, you are testing a model, not a claim.

If there are genuine psychic events that are not producible on demand, then it may be that we have no way to test the claims. If there is something wrong with that logic, please tell me specifically what it is. It isn't that we can say we have scientific evidence that the phenomenona exist, but we can't falsify claims of direct experience by faith either. It could be that we simply can't anticipate or artificially produce the conditions that allow for repeatable results.

Your position seems to be that anecdotal evidence counts as no evidence at all. While that is true for science, there are some questions that science has no way to address; at least not yet. What's more, logic is not limited to scientific constraints. If science cannot test a claim, then the next best thing is to determine what non-scientific evidence does exist and try to make sense of it. From there, perhaps insights to proper analysis will eventually be realized. But to simply deny all claims with no way to test them, is a leap of faith. I expect more than that.

I should add that many claims may soon be subject to reliable lie detector tests. So any suggestion that this is a game of catch your tail is absolutely false and only shows a lack of imagination. Just think ahead a bit. Sometimes it isn't that hard to see a solution. It may just take a little more time. Then we can know who is lying, and who is telling the truth to the best of their ability.

 

[Count Iblis]

It is actually surprising to see how difficult to verify claims by only a handful of people on Earth usually does get verified eventually. Take e.g. the claim that the galaxy M81 can be seen with the naked eye under exceptionaly good observing conditions, http://messier.obspm.fr/xtra/supp/m81naked.txt"

To be able to see M81, you would need to be at a place where the sky is http://www.skyandtelescope.com/resources/darksky/3304011.html" and you need to have good eye-sight. But even if you succeed, there is no way for someone else to verify that you did indeed see it. Nevertheless this does not turn out to be a problem, the fact that M81 can be seen with the naked eye is not considered to be controversial at all.

 

[Chronos]

Isnt avoiding disaster in the future the whole point of these exercises? Global warming is a potential disaster, not an imminent one. I believe we have power to choose what we wish to avoid once we foresee the consequences of 'business as usual'.

 

[far2close]

So has not anybody tryed algorithms to see what kind of %there is on the evidence.Thats what its there for.

 

[Jason Calvert]

Hello this is my first time on this forum. I have enjoyed your posts. I was wondering what you think of the work done by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin on this subject. What do you think of their studies and evidence? Looking forward to your thoughts.

Thank you,

 

[Evo]

Hello this is my first time on this forum. I have enjoyed your posts. I was wondering what you think of the work done by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin on this subject. What do you think of their studies and evidence? Looking forward to your thoughts.

Thank you,

They are not respected.

The new material includes interviews with a crackpot parapsychologist (Dean Radin, from the “Institute of Noetic Sciences”)

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=342

Rupert Sheldrake
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/sheldrake.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It was announced last month that a paper would be published before the end of the year that allegedly vindicates some of Radin's work. So far we haven't seen anything.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=447224

The author of the paper claims to have eight years of data to support his claims.

Please be sure to limit any discussion of the paper to the thread linked.

 

[far2close]

I have not but will look into it thank you.What do you think of david morehouse?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have not but will look into it thank you.What do you think of david morehouse?

Perhaps the better question is, "Does David Morehouse have any published papers?".

I have no idea who he is.

 

[far2close]

Try looking up stargate program,cia remote viewing or gust type up david morehouse .If you weren't being smart.lol

 

[Evo]

Try looking up stargate program,cia remote viewing or gust type up david morehouse .If you weren't being smart.lol

http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html

Dean Radin in The Conscious Universe says that the remote viewing program “finally wound down in 1994.” He doesn’t mention that the CIA shut it down because they were convinced that after 24 years of experiments it was clear that remote viewing was of no practical value to the intelligence community

 

[far2close]

After thay spent like what 20 million or more.Its a possibility that thay went deep black from what i heard.

 

[FlexGunship]

Try looking up stargate program,cia remote viewing or gust type up david morehouse .If you weren't being smart.lol

I was not impressed by Stargate or any of it's spin-offs. If CIA "remote viewing" were reliable (or existent), then we certainly wouldn't need pesky bills like the Patriot Act. As far as "not being smart," you would have a hard time finding individuals better suited to dismantling your arguments than Ivan and Evo.

Heres a fun experiment.Tell a friend what you have on your mind weather it be negative or positive energy,must be focused.Then proceed to walk into a room completely hiding that energy inside yourself.Between you and your friend analyze peoples reaction.Very good for a chuckle!

It's hardly an experiment at all. The preconditions are poorly defined. What could it mean to tell a friend if you have positive or negative energy on your mind regardless of its focal status?

So I am supposed to tell my friend that I am thinking about dolphins, then measure the response of other individuals in the room to my thoughts about dolphins? Your idea is barely coherent. There is no control case, and the entire idea is fraught with cognitive biases. How do we define a positive or negative result to the test? How do we separate these results from chance and noise?

After thay spent like what 20 million or more.Its a possibility that thay went deep black from what i heard.

Ah, yes, of course.

Is still the friend/weather thing? Someone spent 20 million (unitless) hiding their thoughts from a room full of people? That certainly leaves something to be desired from the investment aspect. I wouldn't even know how to calculate a rate of return.

 

[FlexGunship]

(Sad but true.Ever play poker that's the goal.As for the return gust got to guess what the other guy is thinking. lol.)

Pardon?

The cryptic manner of your speech is leaving my brain feeling a bit like it's suffering from aphasia. What does it mean to "gust got to guess"?

Also, it seems you've added lots of little afterthoughts to my quote. I would appreciate it if you would unquote the things that I didn't say so as to avoid the illusion that I've said them.

Also, regarding your single-king theory: which king could you be referring to? It is whichever king has most recently achieved monarchical status, or is it... oh, nevermind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...they were convinced that after 24 years of experiments it was clear that remote viewing was of no practical value to the intelligence community

There is one credible problem with that statement. What would they say if it worked?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Try looking up stargate program,cia remote viewing or gust type up david morehouse .If you weren't being smart.lol

I am familiar with the claims surrounding the Stargate program but didn't know of that particular person. I did once invite Ed Dames [former CIA] to parcipate here and demonstrate his alleged skill, but he declined.

I must admit that I also saw Michael Shermer test four remote viewing students, including one who was supposed to be a star pupil. Frankly, I thought the star pupil produced a drawing and description that could qualify as a hit. The target was a photo of a spiral galaxy. The remote viewer drew spirals and kept describing it as a "vortex" or "whirlpool of energy". Was it a hit? There is no way to really know. And that is the problem. The alleged hits are usually subject to interpretation. I have only seen one demonstration that resulted in an undeniable hit, but this was some TV show, so there was no way to know if the demo was legit.

What I found bothersome was that Shermer didn't want to admit that it could be argued a hit. Even the advocates don't claim that the viewers can produce reliable descriptions that are absolute. But again, this is why it gets too flakey. One can usually argue that any correlation between the target and the remote viewing result is in the mind of the observer. This subjectivity may be why the CIA presumably wasted so much time on this. It may be an endless game of chasing your own tail.

Late Edit: I may not have described the test accurately. It has been a good number of years since I saw it... I am now thinking the photo was the Hubble Deepfield image and the viewer drew one spiral, but the point is the same. Based on the nature of the claims related to this alleged skill, I thought one had to allow that it could be a hit. Given that Shermer was the one controlling the test, I found it a bit surprising.

 

[DBTS]

There is one credible problem with that statement. What would they say if it worked?

Cannot let that sucker get out!

I like what zoobyshoe said concerning the subtle mental notes:

"these cases of people having visions of body locations are not paranormal but the result of them having unrecognized expertize in the mundane matter of people's personal habits, plus a large collection of information about murders and the kinds of places killers leave bodies"​

We never know who we might come into contact with and sometimes when we do, even the most subtle hints are clues linking a murderer to its victim, or something to something. That is a rather far out idea of mine based on zoob's post, but I think it is possible.

 

[Drakkith]

Seems to me that if you are a believer, you simply accept the so called "evidence" as being for psychic phenomena, and if you arent, then you dont.

The difference here is that the evidence has yet to ever hold up to close scrutiny under good and valid circumstances. And every time it doesnt, someone makes an excuse like "Well, they can't always do it on demand" or something like that.

We have been able to explain a huge number of things through science and show that they arent Magic or Demons or anything else other than a natural process or sheer coincidence. There is NO reason to think this is different. A very large number of frauds have been discovered before which also reduces the validity of "evidence" for psychic phenomena. I know of several times I have read about a so-called "Psychic" that predicts some event true, and it turns out that they were either very skilled in deducing events using evidence, knew about the event beforehand, or their prediction was so vague that you could interpret it 100 different ways.

Out of all the realms of Magic, Psychics, and other areas, NONE of them have EVER been able to affect the world like Science and Technology has. Why? Because NONE of them are reproducible to any extent whatsoever.

I believe that many people simply believe things because they have to or because they want too. And not simply in this area. I have a friend who has told me that she NEEDS to believe in a god because otherwise she sees no purpose in life. Without ANY evidence to believe this, she feels that she MUST. I see similar circumstances here.

Evidence for psychic phenomena? It can most likely be attributed to something else. It's what's probable, not what's possible to me. Why? Because I can't honestly say that i KNOW something is impossible.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Seems to me that if you are a believer, you simply accept the so called "evidence" as being for psychic phenomena, and if you arent, then you dont.

The difference here is that the evidence has yet to ever hold up to close scrutiny under good and valid circumstances. And every time it doesnt, someone makes an excuse like "Well, they can't always do it on demand" or something like that.

Thay may not be correct. As referenced earlier, we are waiting to see if a paper will be published, as was announced, showing, allegedly, eight years of experimental evidence for precognition. At this point we can only wait and see what happens.

See this thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=447224

We have been able to explain a huge number of things through science and show that they arent Magic or Demons or anything else other than a natural process or sheer coincidence. There is NO reason to think this is different.

That is a strawman argument. If psychic phenomena exist, it is the result of neither magic or demons. It would simply be a manifestation of physical laws that either we didn't expect, or perhaps one that we don't understand. It is a fond tradition of the human species to assign anything we don't understand to the world of magic.

A very large number of frauds have been discovered before which also reduces the validity of "evidence" for psychic phenomena. I know of several times I have read about a so-called "Psychic" that predicts some event true, and it turns out that they were either very skilled in deducing events using evidence, knew about the event beforehand, or their prediction was so vague that you could interpret it 100 different ways.

I think we all agree that so-called "psychics" have never been able to produce repeatable results. However, this does not rule out the possibility that psychic events occur. These can be two very different ideas. Psychics claim to control this ability and produce results more or less on demand. Just as an example of the loopholes still open, it could be that all so-called psychics are frauds or deluding themselves, but psychic events do occur randomly or for reasons we don't understand, but only rarely - say once in a lifetime for one out of every 1 million people. In this case it might be very difficult to identify any genuine events. So some scientists [crackpots or not] have devoted decades to developing tests that might detect an underlying signal for psychic phenomena, in a manner acceptable to science.

What makes the remote viewing claims difficult to evaluate are the subjective elements. We seemingly can't apply a simple pass or fail test. The inability to precisely define the parameters for success may be what tricks people into believing they are remote viewing, when they're really not [assuming such things are not possible].

 

[Drakkith]

Perhaps i didn't explain myself well enough Ivan.

I don't believe in psychic phomena for the reasons i stated above. However, I maintain the attitude that if it happens and we can see it and prove its psychic then so be it. Until then, it won't belong in science. (As I've read here before, If there's no way to prove it or run any experiments, then it pretty much doesn't matter) Or something like that at least.

If there's a paper out on it, then we'll wait and see. =)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps i didn't explain myself well enough Ivan.

I don't believe in psychic phomena for the reasons i stated above. However, I maintain the attitude that if it happens and we can see it and prove its psychic then so be it. Until then, it won't belong in science. (As I've read here before, If there's no way to prove it or run any experiments, then it pretty much doesn't matter) Or something like that at least.

If there's a paper out on it, then we'll wait and see. =)

Fair enough. Ultimately the point was that while some types of claims about psychic phenomena seem to be reasonably debunked, this isn't true of all types of claims. Some can probably never be falsified - no proving a universal negative.

 

[Calrik]

There is none that has been subject to scientific scrutiny. That said that doesn't mean it doesn't exist just that we can't find it.

Would be nice to, but it would probably decimate the laws of physics. Is that a bad thing no, science thrives on it but their are too many laws it would violate to explain it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is none that has been subject to scientific scrutiny. That said that doesn't mean it doesn't exist just that we can't find it.

Would be nice to, but it would probably decimate the laws of physics. Is that a bad thing no, science thrives on it but their are too many laws it would violate to explain it.

What laws would it violate?

 

[Calrik]

What laws would it violate?

Materialism and evolution bear with me not exactly laws. Why would man need to evolve an ability it did not need?