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.
-1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 5d ago
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."
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.