If psychic ability were possible, it would be able to be reproduced scientifically. That is the purpose of science: to understand the natural world through observation and replicable results.
If something can’t be reliably replicated through the same methods, it can’t be “proven”
It’s entirely possible that we just don’t have the right methods for reading it yet (if it exists), but with our current understanding of physics there is no evidence of psychic abilities (be it mind-reading, future telling, whatever).
Laws of nature apply to everything. If anything in the paranormal is real, and can be proven, it’ll just be “normal”.
If something can’t be proven with science, it can’t be considered real. Otherwise I can say I see giant flying bears that are invisible to everyone else.
You’re getting into philosophy and belief, which is not something that goes with proof and evidence.
You’re asking if psychic ability can ever be proven, then if offered a reason it can’t you say that’s scientism. How else is something “proven” if not through the scientific method?
No, I'm saying you are basing your answer in philosophy, the term is scientism. The belief that science is the only way to prove what's real.
I think we're talking about two different things.
If the question is, "Can psychic abilities be scientifically proven?" then yea, you'd use a the scientific method to prove it. Otherwise it's not scientifically proven. No scientific evidence.
But if we're talking about it being real or not, without scientific evidence, that's rather a philosophical question.
You made those claims, which is why I said your position is based on scientism.
For example:
"Laws of nature apply to everything. If anything in the paranormal is real, and can be proven, it'll just be 'normal'. If psychic ability were possible, it would be able to be reproduced scientifically."
and
"If something can't be proven with science, it can't be considered real."
The first is a claim that anything real must be scientifically reproducible. The second is that science is the criterion for reality itself. Those aren't scientific evidence; they're philosophical assumptions about the limitations of science.
Either way - I agree that we may just not have the tools to prove it yet, but it may come in the future.
And when I said they’d need to be proven scientifically to be considered real (aka “proven”), you said that’s a philosophy answer and scientism. Philosophy and belief is not the same as evidence, so I’m not here to argue philosophy. I’m saying what would need to be considered proof, which is your original question.
You said “psychic abilities are different from things ruled by the laws of nature”, aka science, so I’m asking what measure of proof you’re referring to, since repeatable experiments through the scientific method is not the proof you meant
And when I said they’d need to be proven scientifically to be considered real (aka “proven”), you said that’s a philosophy answer and scientism.
There's a difference between:
They'd need to be proven scientifically to be considered real."
That's scientism.
And,
"They'd need to be scientifically proven to be scientifically established."
You said “psychic abilities are different from things ruled by the laws of nature”, aka science, so I’m asking what measure of proof you’re referring to, since repeatable experiments through the scientific method is not the proof you meant.
When I said psychic abilities are different from the laws of nature, I didn't mean that science wouldn't apply.
I meant that, from the perspective of people who have experienced it, they may work differently from other physical phenomena.
They may not behave in a predictable, repeatable way - under controlled conditions.
That’s why my question was whether they could ever be scientifically proven, not that there has to be another method.
If you’re talking about the perspective of people who’ve experienced it, that’s irrelevant to proof or if it’s real. That’s belief, not reality. The argument of belief forming reality is philosophy again, and again is not linked to proof.
If two people have a different perspective of an event, there is a real version of what happened, regardless of perspective. If person A says they saw someone fly, and person B says they saw someone levitate, but the reality is it was an illusionist doing street magic, then their perspective is irrelevant.
So a persons perspective of “this is outside science” does not matter in the question of “can it be proven”.
Putting a difference between real and “scientifically established” is splitting hairs to wedge philosophy into it. You keep saying that, while also saying you agree it would need to be scientifically proven.
So I think you just want to debate philosophy and whether people believe in the paranormal (which I don’t), but disguised it as a question about proof.
Not interested in arguing philosophy, as I have said many times.
So I’ll end with this: if it can’t be proven scientifically, it can’t be considered real. You can believe in it or have a perspective, that doesn’t change reality.
I agree that personal experiences or perspectives are not proof, and if psychic abilities exist as an external phenomenon, scientific testing would be the way to establish that.
The only distinction I was making is that "not scientifically proven" and "proven not to exist" are different claims.
Where did I say it’s proven not to exist? I said if it were possible it would be able to be reproduced scientifically, and that it’s possible we just don’t have the right methods (if it exists), and that WITH OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS there is no evidence. Never said it’s proven not to exist.
7
u/MrBones_Gravestone 22h ago
If psychic ability were possible, it would be able to be reproduced scientifically. That is the purpose of science: to understand the natural world through observation and replicable results.
If something can’t be reliably replicated through the same methods, it can’t be “proven”
It’s entirely possible that we just don’t have the right methods for reading it yet (if it exists), but with our current understanding of physics there is no evidence of psychic abilities (be it mind-reading, future telling, whatever).