Science has given us the most complete and measurable understanding of our universe and existence that we know of. The scientific method is the best way to understand anything measurable.

However no matter how hard you try every person has a subjective experience, and with psychic phenomena there is nothing but subjective experience. That makes it so confirmation bias is all you’ve got. The true believers see a truly real effect, and the skeptics see nothing.

I personally see psychic phenomena as more art than science. There is no guaranteed step by step measured process for psychokinesis (for example) but everyone has what works for them. There is still experimentation going on but more often it seems to be guided by intuition than cold hard measurable results.

Of course, things that are known as fact can be flipped upside down pretty easily with this method as well, which solves most of those problems - it just takes time.

However I am interested to see your evidence on life after death.

I notice a few ideas in these comments that treat science as though it’s a belief system. It is a belief system… but not in the same sense that religious belief is.

I think it’s important to make a distinction between science and modern science. I see science as just an idea - a way of looking at the world. Science (to me) is the idea that we need to be systematic and logical when figuring out the world around us. We need to base our theories on evidence, and be willing to change our beliefs when new evidence reasonably suggests that we should.

Modern science, on the other hand, is what I consider to be what most scientists say about the world, today. It’s whatever the current beliefs are. For example, the Big Bang Theory, evolution, and psychic abilities not being real, fall under modern science.

When I talk about science being great, I am talking about the idea - the process of science. I am NOT trying to defend modern science. Obviously I disagree a lot with modern science, because I see a whole buttload of evidence for psychic abilities, life after death, and forms of intention manifestation. But I agree with the process - I agree 100% that we need to try and be objective, theorize, experiment, and gather evidence fairly.

Just wanted to make that distinction clear :-P.

What is the gap and what were the reasons given in the book? I’m asking out of interest, not to attack you.

I’ve always felt that science would explain everything despite whatever the conditions are. Yes, it explains how things to be, and it can be interesting and useful, but sometimes it feels irrelevant in terms of saying, ” NO, this can’t happen because THIS is how it really happens and it can never happen any differently! ”

My theory is that even if we had tentacle arms and spoke using gaseous outbursts, science would still have an explanation for it. Of course, those things haven’t happened, but that’s the best way I can get my point across.

I think intention manifestation can be tested scientifically BTW, in fact the experiments done with PK have arguably already proven it in it s most basic sense. Experiments with dice-tossing and random number generators for example. Come to think of it other experiments also provide defensible evidence of ESP. Science rocks!

I don’t think waiting around for evidence is smart though. Thats philosophical opinion. Sometimes you just have to experiment for yourself, especially in the case of psi.