Do you have any references to these scientific studies for me to look up?
Tremaine notes that: "many things have been proven, one way or another, ESP for example."
Again, I would like to see the proofs.
It is worthwhile have a read of this:
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/Oracle/ESP.html
I've copied the last couple of paragraghs below:
'After all this, in order to understand the nature of the argument that ESP is a matter of faith alone, it is still important to understand just what is necessarry to have a scientific proof of something and furthermore, the difference between matters of science and matters of faith. In order for any theory to be considered scientific, there must be at least one testable hypothesis concerning the theory, and that theory must make accurate predictions concerning the testing of the hypothesis. For example, the theory that what comes up must come down predicts that a dropped bowling ball will hit the ground. That it will hit the ground is also the hypothesis. Testing the hypothesis by dropping the ball will show that it does, indeed, hit the ground. Although most examples are far more complex than this, this example provides a simple outline of the scientific method. One more important note: Any repeat of the test must produce the same results (i.e. if anyone else drops the bowling ball, it must hit the ground then as well.)
'Thus, in order for ESP to be a matter of science, there must be a testable hypothesis concerning the theory. There are several, none of which, however, are as simplistically observed as the bowling ball. The primary hypothesis behind the ganzfeld tests is that ESP abilities are hightened under states of sensory deprivation. As yet, there are no repeatable ganzfeld tests which have produced results which coincide with the predictions made by the theory behind ESP. Yet support for this phenomenon exists, even after decades of scientific research has failed to support it. It seems that, as William Grey says "However we characterize the scientific method, the defenders of Psi claim that the currently accepted methods of inquiry are too limitied." (146) Since ESP was introduced 60 years ago, there has not been a single accepted test which demonstrates its existence (Krauss 52). Says Grey: "Parapsychological . . . experiences are real enough; what is in dispute is how they are best explained" (144). This is an important point to consider. Does a lack of scientific proof disprove something’s existence? The majority of the earth’s population which believes in the existence of God and the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantium both say no. Then if six decades of experiments have failed to accurately demonstrate the existence of ESP, there are two reasons that could have caused that failure. The first is the simplest: ESP does not exist. The second is that any explanation of ESP transcends science. That is, ESP becomes a matter of faith in the same class as God, angels, and other spiritual matters. This may be asserted because of the logical rules of alternatives: if not one thing, then another. That is to say if something can not be asserted by the empirical use of the scientific method, then it must be either non-existent, or a matter of faith. The popularity of the phenomena of ESP seems to make at least some argument for its existence, even if its not a scientifically sound one. Thus, rather than not existing at all, ESP likely belongs in that category of human experience which does not relate to science at all, but to personal faith; its existence a matter of the heart, rather than the labratory.'
If Greg L reads and asks for a summary, it is this:
"ESP does not seem to be able to be proven scientifically".
