Do you believe in psychics, extraterrestrial life, time travel, other universes?

[Darththeo]

Oh, okay. Like all those Bigfoot sightings just stopped when it was easy to take pictures, or ghosts etc... yeah, "can't be explained" = "I was confused."

... you think people aren't still seeing Bigfoot and ghosts? I am not saying they are real, but people still see them.

- - - Updated - - -

-snip-

If everything we know about life is more common than we originally thought, what logical reason do we have to assume that there would or is reasonable to be any astronomically rare factor to the Origin of Life to make it so unlikely that life doesn't exist anywhere else besides such a thing mathematically possible? And why in all our years of study has such a factor has not been found or even suggested what it could be?

And no, not finding life is not evidence for it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

That also was not his argument. His argument wasn't you can't comprehend psychics is that even given psychics most people are going to assume more mundane answers, so more than just a simple proof will be required. He is definitely deflecting though.

Either way, thats still circular logic. No psychic has been caught, because humans will demand deny they exist and try to explain it away, because no psychics have been caught.

Its not a real argument.

- - - Updated - - -

... you think people aren't still seeing Bigfoot and ghosts? I am not saying they are real, but people still see them.

Are people saying they are seeing ghosts and bigfoot? Maybe, I don't know or care. But are they taking pictures on their very easy to get cell phone or digital cameras who most humans in the US have? No, no they are not. It was all fun and games before it would have been easy to take a picture of bigfoot. But we still only have that one very blurry picture of him that was said to be fraudulent, and all those ghosts shows constantly getting busted for faking their spookiness.

[Osmeric]

If everything we know about life is more common than we originally thought, what logical reason do we have to assume that there would or is reasonable to be any astronomically rare factor to the Origin of Life to make it unlikely besides such a thing mathematically possible? And why in all our years of study has such a factor has not been found or even suggested what it could be?

And no, not finding life is not evidence for it.

But I already explained why it would be plausible that there's some unlikely step: the enormous complexity gap between what prebiotic chemistry experiments have achieved and the smallest system capable of evolution. Indeed, it would be an enormously interesting discovery -- certainly worthy of a Nobel Prize -- to find a way past this complexity barrier that didn't involve extremely long odds. But this has never been demonstrated. At best, there are theory schemas that vaguely suggest how it might be possible (but that proves nothing.)

Given the huge complexity barrier, I will turn this around and ask why is it reasonable to presume such a "cheat" exists, and is sufficiently strong so that the difficulty is reduced enough that life will arise more than once per universe? (Exactly what counts as a "universe" there should be specified; do the different branches of the wave function of a universe in the Many Worlds interpretation of QM count? Different causally disconnected bubbles in Eternal Inflation scenarios? Or just the observable universe, which is likely what we could ever see?)

[Ielenia]

Did I say they intentionally fail? No.

You said: "and just because none of been proven doesn't mean none of them have it" which implies those tested actually had supernatural powers, but failed the test. Which can only mean one thing: they have to have intentionally decided to fail the test. Because the only way to fail the test is to find out the fraudulent way one is faking the supernatural abilities they claim to have.

There is no way that I can see they can "accidentally" fail that test.

Someone can take a test to show they have powers, but the results are considered inconclusive or incorrect or they failed the test for other reasons.

How? I cannot think of any way how one can fail the test other than intentionally. And then there is the guy who offered a million dollars (I think it was a million?) to anyone who could demonstrate supernatural powers. If memory serves is that, if the guy couldn't find any way in which the demonstration is fraudulent, they'd win the money. So far, no one got the prize.

[Surfd]

The evidence we have is consistent with life being rare.

On what are you basing this? On the simple fact that, so far, the only place we have proven life exists is earth? Which, based on current data, is such an infinitesimally tiny observation sample of the universe as to be utterly statistically meaningless?

What you are arguing is akin to saying that you "observed" one square picometer of the entirety of planet earth and then declaring that your observations are therefore broad enough to allow you to make statements about the constraints under with the entire rest of the planet must operate.

You can't make the sweeping statement that life must be "rare" simply because you have not spotted it anywhere else but earth in the insanely fucking tiny amount of the universe you have so far observed.

That's about as moronic as making the following observation:
- I found ants in my yard.
- I did not find ants in my neighbors yard.

And attempting to argue that therefore, ants must be exceedingly rare on planet earth.

- - - Updated - - -

The "scientific community" is not the "basic human rights defiler community". Also, who said anything about that person being the "only one"? Are you saying that only one person in the entire world would have supernatural powers?

A: You seem to have a very weak grasp of history if you believe the "scientific community" wouldn't be willing to toss human rights out the window when it suited them. Questionable shit gets done in the name of science literally all the time. I guarantee you questionable shit would probably happen if a legit supernatural powered person poked their head up and made their presence known.
B: I postulated one person because that's what we were talking about: A single person becoming known. This doesn't / wouldn't preclude the existence of others, but that wasn't what the topic at hand was. And if there were others? Well, just try to imagine, like actually imagine, what the world wide reaction to an actual mass emergence event would be like. I assure you it wouldn't be even vaguely close to happy fun times. Think X-Men comics, but crank the violence, racism, hatred and bigotry up to 11 and start stacking the bodies, cause it won't be pretty. Human nature literally doesn't work that way.

Why didn't they, then? Why now suddenly there's this worry of "if they could get away with it"? What makes you think they'd have an easier time "getting away with it" murdering one man?

Why didn't they? Because thankfully, there were people with functioning brains still in control of most of the important shit that happens in the country, who wouldn't let the Orange imbecile actually pull that trigger. But believe me, we probably came a hairs breadth from full on blood in the streets. As for having an easier time murdering one man? Laughable. The USA murders people with impunity on a regular basis. They just happen to be generally acceptable targets because they are "bad guys". You know. Brown, middle eastern, plotting the terrorism. Or maybe Mexican drug lords. Again: Never underestimate the lengths a government will go to to deal with elements they deem a possible threat to their safety and stability.

Yes! Russia and China will tremble because the US have a guy in their pockets who can levitate small objects with his mind!

You think Russia and China are going to take the USA's word for it that that is the only thing the guy can do? You think they are going to risk it? And even if we accept that that is the only thing he can do, there are probably loads of ways that being able to levitate small objects with your mind could make you incredibly valuable in the right situations.

Except it's very relevant. I never said fame would 100% protect them. You're the one postulating that if a guy with supernatural powers came forward into the light, they would die, despite having literally zero evidence of that. And then when you tried to counter my claim that fame can protect them, you said "yeah famous people die too" and then I asked how many of those die in comparison to how many are still alive. Hell, let's make it even better: how many famous people are being assassinated in comparison to those still alive. Famous people get protection. That is a fact.

No, it's still completely irrelevant. Being famous is not going to protect you if someone wants you dead and is willing to see it through. Period.

I never said they would die. I said that simply by existing they would become a target. And they would. 100% guaranteed. Fame is not JUST adoring fans. Especially when you get into "literal supernatural abilities" territory. That kind of Fame gets you literal psycho crazies who would probably be entirely willing to hijack a plane and crash it into your hotel room on the off chance they take you with them.

And your exact quote was:

You really think rando Joe Shmoe with a gun would be able to kill a worldly famous, protected person? I imagine they wouldn't be able to even get near that person, much less have an opportunity to kill them.

To which I reminded you that a random Joe Schmoe blew JFK's head off, and he was the president of the USA. It literally doesn't get much more famous than that. A "random Joe Schmoe" just murdered a UK Member of Parliament just a handful of days ago. Just literally walked into a public meeting the guy was at and stabbed him to death. Maybe he just wasn't famous enough to get the protection he needed or something?

As for how many famous people die vs how many don't, that's a meaningless question. Even disregarding the generalities of the question, such as who qualifies as sufficiently famous to be included in the count (only world leaders? Famous rock stars? Does the guy from the ShamWow commercials count? What's the minimum number of Twitch followers you need to make the grade?), it doesn't matter. All that matters is that famous people die when someone is sufficiently determined to kill them.

Famous people get protection. That's a Fact.

Sure, but no amount of protection is going to keep you alive if someone is determined to see you dead. The only reason a lot of people (famous or not) are still alive is because nobody out there is crazy enough to make the calculated decision that ending their life is worth the almost 100% certainty of effectively ending your own.

Fame won't protect you if someone is crazy enough to make the decision that killing you is worth the cost.

[Darththeo]

But I already explained why it would be plausible that there's some unlikely step: the enormous complexity gap between what prebiotic chemistry experiments have achieved and the smallest system capable of evolution. Indeed, it would be an enormously interesting discovery -- certainly worthy of a Nobel Prize -- to find a way past this complexity barrier that didn't involve extremely long odds. But this has never been demonstrated. At best, there are theory schemas that vaguely suggest how it might be possible (but that proves nothing.)

Given the huge complexity barrier, I will turn this around and ask why is it reasonable to presume such a "cheat" exists, and is sufficiently strong so that the difficulty is reduced enough that life will arise more than once per universe? (Exactly what counts as a "universe" there should be specified; do the different branches of the wave function of a universe in the Many Worlds interpretation of QM count? Different causally disconnected bubbles in Eternal Inflation scenarios? Or just the observable universe, which is likely what we could ever see?)

No, it is not "plausible" it is possible. You do not have enough information to claim that it is anything more than possible. You need more information to claim that life have a barrier like that is plausible besides math, which is all you have.

Using that same logic, we cannot prove gravity actually exists ... it is possible that we have an observer bias we are unaware of and gravity is something else entirely. Should we discount gravity? We cannot prove any evolutionary line we propose, therefore discount evolution right?

Your argument isn't actually logical. It sounds logical, but it fails. Because it is built on the fact our knowledge about how life starts is imperfect, but so is all our knowledge. Essentially, you are saying because for your personal liking we haven't fully ruled out this possibility therefore we cannot say anything for certain. That is not a logical statement.

Even if we found life on Mars tomorrow. You would still be able to make your argument. Even if we found life in 3 systems in the Milky Way, you can still make it. The only way to disprove your argument is if life is so common it is everywhere in the universe and no one is claiming that. Your argument is for all intents and purposes unfalsifiable, therefore has no place in an argument on science.

And the kicker is your own logic defeats your own argument anyway.

Also, stop bring up evolution. Evolution is not a requirement for life. On Earth the line to where we draw life ranges from the first self replicating molecules to the first cell and people argue everything in between those. We don't know exactly where evolution stepped in the process only that it happened.

[Amarys]

Ofc you can start with statistics and math.
There is even a famous equation for it.

We got more than one planet in the solar systems, x number of solar systems with y number of planets and z number of galaxies.

You can now start your math.

- - - Updated - - -

And guys.... There is no super natural.

Because if something super is natural, in the end its just natural.

Too many variables in that formula are unknown so for now it isn't actual math, it's more of a reference or a reminder that we need to know these things to answer this question. So no, you can't use any kind of math or bring in statistics unless you fill the gaps with your imagination and wishful thinking but then it stops being science.

[Osmeric]

On what are you basing this? On the simple fact that, so far, the only place we have proven life exists is earth? Which, based on current data, is such an infinitesimally tiny observation sample of the universe as to be utterly statistically meaningless?

It's also because we don't understand how life got started. This ignorance is profound, and we cannot at all rule out the possibility that some step in that process is extremely difficult, so difficult that life originating twice in the observable universe is unlikely.

(If we understood OoL was easy, say because we could make it happen in the laboratory, then we'd be entitled to conclude life exists elsewhere in the universe beyond our solar system. even if we hadn't proved that it exists at any other specific place out there. But that is not the situation we are in.)

Notice (I say for the Nth time) that I am not claiming that life is rare, I'm claiming the current evidence does not support the inference that it is not rare. The meager scope of the evidence that you point out there strengthens this claim.

What you are arguing is akin to saying that you "observed" one square picometer of the entirety of planet earth and then declaring that your observations are therefore broad enough to allow you to make statements about the constraints under with the entire rest of the planet must operate.

You make the same mistake others have made in this thread. You are confusing "we can not conclude X" with "we can conclude not X". Your criticism would be valid if I were claiming life is rare. I'm not making that claim.

You can't make the sweeping statement that life must be "rare"

I didn't make that claim. Reading for comprehension is hard?

[Shadowferal]

You make the same mistake others have made in this thread.

And you keep spouting this.
If everyone is making "this mistake" you claim then "you" are the problem.
My earlier words that translated your gobbledygook; "we don't know enough to be certain of our uncertainty," followed the rule of "three Cs" for effective communication; clear, concise, and consistent. If you have to post paragraphs to get your opinion across...and so poorly that everyone make the "same mistakes" then don't bother.

[Osmeric]

And you keep spouting this.
If everyone is making "this mistake" you claim then "you" are the problem.

No, I'm not the problem. If I claim 2+2=4, and a bunch of people tell me, no, it's 5, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Here it's that a bunch of people -- you too, apparently -- don't understand how to think about truth vs. belief, and confuse the two. This leads to repeated misinterpretation of what I quite plainly wrote.

I'll repeat the point again, not that I expect you to understand it at this point: the claim that the evidence does not justify concluding that X is true, and the claim that the evidence justifies concluding that X is false, are different claims. The latter is a much stronger claim.

[Darththeo]

No, I'm not the problem. If I claim 2+2=4, and a bunch of people tell me, no, it's 5, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Here it's that a bunch of people -- you too, apparently -- don't understand how to think about truth vs. belief, and confuse the two. This leads to repeated misinterpretation of what I quite plainly wrote.

I'll repeat the point again, not that I expect you to understand it at this point: the claim that the evidence does not justify concluding that X is true, and the claim that the evidence justifies concluding that X is false, are different claims. The latter is a much stronger claim.

Correct, but this isn't like 2+2=4. (Also, a terrible analogy as that is essentially a definition, rather than a conclusion that you are arguing. Or rather we cannot be certain of anything until we hit some arbitrary amount for you.)

This is like saying "Based on we see, Person X is the likely criminal." And you go "But you haven't fully ruled out Person Y, therefore you don't know that."

But it isn't even that. You are proposing that the possibility that some mystery obstacle that we do not know could exist therefore you cannot claim life is likely. You don't seem to comprehend that just saying that isn't a refutation, it is perfectly fine if you personally are not convinced of the validity, but declaring there is no reason to accept it is nonsensical.

Taking your argument to the extreme discounts all human knowledge, for you there must be some cut off where evidence before perfect knowledge is obtain for us to be certain enough to make claims.

[Dch48]

This is flawed thinking in every conceivable way.

"could not be explained any other way": this is the argument from ignorance fallacy; just because other explanations have not been provided doesn't mean your proposed explanation is automatically true. This is not how proof and evidence work AT ALL - evidence is proof positive, you don't simply get to a conclusion through the exclusion of other propositions, because the number of proposed (but unproven) propositions is a set of infinite size.

"I know for a fact that seeing into the future is possible": you don't KNOW this, you (at best) BELIEVE this. If you had knowledge, you could provide an epistemological basis, and provide evidence. You can't - or you would have, and pocketed your Nobel prize in the process, for proving clairvoyance is real. All you have is an assertion, and conviction; that is a far cry from knowledge.

"you can’t prove or disprove supernatural events by natural means": the burden on proof is on the one making the claim, since (as above) the set of potential things to be disproven is arbitrarily large. If something CANNOT be proven, it cannot be investigated and it cannot be part of any rational argument (which requires falsifiability). The counterargument is simple: disprove please that what you claim wasn't caused by an omnipotent, undetectable elf named Zachary. Oh, you can't? Well checkmate then, guess Zach's done it again. Since such claims can be repeated ad infinitum and are, epistemologically speaking, on the exact same argumentative footing as yours (i.e. none at all), this is not a valid process for arriving at truth claims.

"Science does not have all the answers and never will": impossibility has to be demonstrated, just like possibility has to be. We don't know if science can explain EVERYTHING, but so far, we have no discovered a better method for investigating truth claims about reality, and we have discovered nothing that would point towards an impossibility for science to, in principle, explain anything about reality. There may be limitations to human understanding, certainly (if nothing else, then related to the limitations of our physical brains), but there is nothing so far that even hints at conceptual limitations to scientific methodology. If you have proof of such limitations, present it, pass Go, and collect your Nobel prize.

Complete fluff and nonsense. Things exist that are not bound by the rules of Science.

[Santti]

Complete fluff and nonsense. Things exist that are not bound by the rules of Science.

Such as...?

[Ielenia]

A: You seem to have a very weak grasp of history if you believe the "scientific community" wouldn't be willing to toss human rights out the window when it suited them. Questionable shit gets done in the name of science literally all the time. I guarantee you questionable shit would probably happen if a legit supernatural powered person poked their head up and made their presence known.

No, you have a very distorted sense of reality if you truly believe that. That's like saying the whole world today would burn women alive on pyres if they revealed themselves to be witches, "because that is how it was done in the past." And I guarantee you it wouldn't happen. And guess what? Neither of us can make any guarantees.

I assure you it wouldn't be even vaguely close to happy fun times.

And I assure you it would be. See how that works?

Think X-Men comics, but crank the violence, racism, hatred and bigotry up to 11 and start stacking the bodies, cause it won't be pretty.

Nah. It wouldn't even be close to how racism was portrayed in the X-men.

Why didn't they? Because thankfully, there were people with functioning brains still in control of most of the important shit that happens in the country, who wouldn't let the Orange imbecile actually pull that trigger.

And why would that be any different if we had people with supernatural powers? Why would it be fine for the government think they can kill those guys "because they can destabilize society" but not those aforementioned protesters?

You think Russia and China are going to take the USA's word for it that that is the only thing the guy can do? You think they are going to risk it?

... You really think that there would be just one singular person with supernatural powers in the world? Or that all of them would exist solely in the US?

To which I reminded you that a random Joe Schmoe blew JFK's head off, and he was the president of the USA. It literally doesn't get much more famous than that. A "random Joe Schmoe" just murdered a UK Member of Parliament just a handful of days ago. Just literally walked into a public meeting the guy was at and stabbed him to death. Maybe he just wasn't famous enough to get the protection he needed or something?

The guy had a rifle and acted just like a sniper. He wasn't just a "rando nobody", and nowadays important people don't just travel through cities on convertibles, but on full-on bullet proof cars, with very dark tinted windows and one or two cars that are exactly alike to make it harder to figure out which one the VIP is traveling in. Along with police/military escort.

As for how many famous people die vs how many don't, that's a meaningless question.

Nope. It's a very relevant question. If you're going to say "famous people die because they're famous", then knowing how many die vs how many are still alive is very relevant information. Because it shows that, hey, famous people are not dying left and right because they're famous.

Sure, but no amount of protection is going to keep you alive if someone is determined to see you dead. The only reason a lot of people (famous or not) are still alive is because nobody out there is crazy enough to make the calculated decision that ending their life is worth the almost 100% certainty of effectively ending your own.

Sounds like an effective deterrent. Especially since the more famous you are, the more people will defend the VIP, and the more they'll make sure whoever harmed the VIP is found and punished.

- - - Updated - - -

Complete fluff and nonsense. Things exist that are not bound by the rules of Science.

Such as.........?

Also, science doesn't "make rules". Science explains how the universe works. It does not control how the universe works.

[Dch48]

Biomega's response to your post covered things well so I'll try to keep it short.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. You make guesses based on what you THINK makes the most sense based on completely unfounded belief in the supernatural. "It happens at random, cannot be tested or verified, adheres to none of the rules that govern our natural world, is often used by liars and cheats to trick ignorant people, BUT I KNOW IT FOR A FACT THAT IT'S TRUE" is pure delusion.

As for Edgar Cayce? The guy was a charlatan and a quack who believed in an alternate history of the world that included the city of Atlantis and tried to push pseudoscience and homeopathy as legitimate medicinal alternatives. The guy was clearly a delusional idiot that gained fame by fooling a lot of gullible people. Just like with remote viewing, which produced no positive results when later conducted under stricter controls, the fact that THESE are your best examples to support your claims just shows how laughable those claims truly are.

I KNOW none of this is going to convince you because if you're gotten to the point where you truly thought you could see the future there's no reasoning through that.

That response was complete fluff and nonsense. Pomp and circumstance.

Those were not my best examples. They were just thrown in as afterthoughts. Cayce was not totally accurate but he did do things that can't be explained. My best examples are what actually happened to me and here's another one that I dare anyone to explain away. It's 1973 and I have a dream where me and my Dad are sitting in the back of a sailboat anchored in a harbor with a few other boats.(At this time, I had never been in or on a sailboat) There is a small derelict building and a narrow sand beach on the far shore. A man and a woman who I had never seen before in real life come rowing up in a rubber raft and climb aboard our boat. A conversation ensues. Now, fast forward to 1977. I am now a member of and officer in the local sailing club in Florida. A group of 13 boats have sailed from the west coast of Florida, down around the cape and over to the Bahamas. A number of the boats are anchored in a small cove south of the island of Bimini. The cove is known as Honeymoon Harbor. Me and my Dad are sitting at the stern of the boat and here come the Barnetts in their Zodiac inflatable raft. They climb aboard and a conversation starts. I get a flash that I have seen this before and the dream comes back to me. Everything is exactly the same, the boats, the building, the beach, and the people. I know exactly what words each person is going to say and who will speak next before it happens and what I hear in my head is word for word what comes out of everyone's mouth for the next few minutes.

The other instances beyond the two I have related were just very brief flashes of people unknown to me at the time of the dream or scenes of places I had never been to.

Yes, I know for a fact that the ability to see future events is real. End of story. Beyond that I have no knowledge of whether others can harness it (I doubt they can) or if it can have any useful applications. Like I said, there have been experiments and studies with mixed results which have never completely disproven the existence of the ability but have yielded accuracies that exceed the boundaries of random chance. Yes, frequently less than 50% but even 30% beats randomness.

I'm sure you guys will come up with something to try and refute this. There is just no reasoning with completely closed minds.

- - - Updated - - -

Just throwing in Bigfoot. I believe it either does or did exist in the recent history of the planet. Ghosts, no. Other things masquerading as ghosts? maybe.

[Darththeo]

Yes, I know for a fact that the ability to see future events is real. End of story. Beyond that I have no knowledge of whether others can harness it (I doubt they can) or if it can have any useful applications. Like I said, there have been experiments and studies with mixed results which have never completely disproven the existence of the ability but have yielded accuracies that exceed the boundaries of random chance. Yes, frequently less than 50% but even 30% beats randomness.

Does it? Maybe in some scenarios, but not all. It depends on how many possible outcomes they is for an event and how loosely you define the boundaries of the outcomes. Unique events are extremely rare (so rare in fact, we don't really know if any event is truly unique), and many events have sister events that are "close enough."

For example, people "seeing" a coin flip will be right can be 50% of the time on sheer chance. While people seeing the suit of a card will be right on sheer chance 25% of the time. If I predict a person will have a fine time at a restaurant, I am betting on odds because most experiences in restaurants are "fine" or better. Saying 30% accuracy beats randomness depends on the test and what is being predicted.

[Biomega]

Complete fluff and nonsense. Things exist that are not bound by the rules of Science.

And you can prove this?

Cayce was not totally accurate but he did do things that can't be explained.

That needs proof, too. At best, he did things that HAVEN'T BEEN explained - that is a far, far leap from CAN'T BE explained. Also: if they can't be explained, YOU don't have an explanation either.

My best examples are what actually happened to me and here's another one that I dare anyone to explain away. It's 1973 and I have a dream where me and my Dad are sitting in the back of a sailboat anchored in a harbor with a few other boats.(At this time, I had never been in or on a sailboat) There is a small derelict building and a narrow sand beach on the far shore. A man and a woman who I had never seen before in real life come rowing up in a rubber raft and climb aboard our boat. A conversation ensues. Now, fast forward to 1977. I am now a member of and officer in the local sailing club in Florida. A group of 13 boats have sailed from the west coast of Florida, down around the cape and over to the Bahamas. A number of the boats are anchored in a small cove south of the island of Bimini. The cove is known as Honeymoon Harbor. Me and my Dad are sitting at the stern of the boat and here come the Barnetts in their Zodiac inflatable raft. They climb aboard and a conversation starts. I get a flash that I have seen this before and the dream comes back to me. Everything is exactly the same, the boats, the building, the beach, and the people. I know exactly what words each person is going to say and who will speak next before it happens and what I hear in my head is word for word what comes out of everyone's mouth for the next few minutes.

This is very easily explained. First, we have no objective proof that you really DID have a dream that predicts those events. You could simply be making this up - not necessarily with ill intentions, but simply unconsciously. Memory is a highly unreliable thing, especially over long periods of time, like the 4 years in this example. There's mountains of evidence for this: people who would swear - and in many cases DID swear, as part of court proceedings - as to a certain sequence of events, only to then be shown objective proof (such as e.g. video recordings etc.) that they weren't remembering right. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and subject to large and often rapid fluctuations in accuracy; this is very well documented. And I'm talking about cases here were people had no personal incentive to dissemble, of course.
Furthermore, memory is known to retroactively adjust itself. You see something that relates to something in your memory, and suddenly you will be convinced of a version of events that doesn't actually correspond to what happened. This can happen after brain injury, for example, or as the result of certain pharmaceuticals (e.g. anesthetics), or simply be a spontaneous psychological event. You may well be CONVINCED that you are remembering everything, and that you can predict what people are going to do/say - when in fact what happens is that AFTER people do/say things your memory adjusts in a way that gives you the impression you knew all along. This has been well researched and tested, and in no case has there been conclusive demonstration/verification that such predictions exist. And I'm guessing you didn't record the event in some objective form, and then check it against what happened to find out you really did make a prediction.

Yes, I know for a fact that the ability to see future events is real.

Again, you don't, and in fact you CAN'T know that "for a fact", because you have no epistemological basis for that knowledge. You THINK you know, you might even be CONVINCED you know, but that's not what "fact" means. If you could objectively demonstrate this, that would be a different story - but "I just know, even if I can't prove it in any way" isn't knowledge.

Like I said, there have been experiments and studies with mixed results which have never completely disproven the existence of the ability but have yielded accuracies that exceed the boundaries of random chance. Yes, frequently less than 50% but even 30% beats randomness.

That's because the claim you're dealing with here is not scientific, and neither is the process of "disproving" that claim. Nobody is working to disprove the existence of leprechauns either - if you claim leprechauns exist, YOU need to PROVE it, not the other way round. Psychic abilities of all kinds and flavors have never, ever, EVER been "proven" to exist, and in fact have never even held up to the bare minimum standards of scientific scrutiny. The JREF had a $1m prize out for decades open to anyone who could demonstrate any kind of supernatural phenomenon, and no one even got over the preliminary stages. There exists no test under proper conditions that wasn't either inconclusive, exposed as a fraud, or didn't demonstrate anything supernatural whatsoever.

I'm sure you guys will come up with something to try and refute this. There is just no reasoning with completely closed minds.

To paraphrase: I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains leak out.

Also: refuting claims IS WHAT SCIENCE DOES. To portray this in a snarky way as some kind of misplaced doubt is intellectually offensive.

[Shadowferal]

But witches were burned, tortured, and hung. (and in sone countries still happening but for differing religious beliefs)
And racism was as bad as it was portrayed in the X-Men. (And still as bad in some countries)
And human experiments have always been a thing, at times even unknowingly to the population.

[Adamas102]

Yes, I know for a fact that the ability to see future events is real. End of story. Beyond that I have no knowledge of whether others can harness it (I doubt they can) or if it can have any useful applications. Like I said, there have been experiments and studies with mixed results which have never completely disproven the existence of the ability but have yielded accuracies that exceed the boundaries of random chance. Yes, frequently less than 50% but even 30% beats randomness.

I'm sure you guys will come up with something to try and refute this. There is just no reasoning with completely closed minds.

Haha, the irony...

Making up fantastical explanations for something you're simply not mentally equipped to explain rationally is not a sign of "open mindedness". You're obviously very ignorant about what "science" even means so it's no wonder that you're dismissive of it, and on top of that you have a propensity for using unreliable and often fraudulent sources as "evidence". You're of course free to believe whatever you like, but you haven't described anything that can't be easily explained as fairly common natural phenomena.

[Vampyr78]

I don't believe in psychics, plenty of them can easly be proven to be frauds when taken in contolled conditions.

I believe that somewhere outthere extraterrestial life exists in some form. There is no proof yet but life is just a series of chemical processes that perfected themselves thanks to proper conditions. Even if it is very unlikely for these conditions to occur on a planet it is still very likely that there is more than one planet where those conditions have occured.

I believe in time travel because it's a proven fact. We all travel through time 1 second every second. It is also a known fact that gravity and speed can affect how fast time flows so it is possible, though very hard and expensive to travel into the future faster than everyone else. Travelling back in time is a different story since the whole idea causes paradoxes.

I don't realy believe in other universes. There is no proof and it is very likely that even if they exist there is no way to proove them. I'm just not a big fan of Many worlds interpretation of Quantum Physics. I think that Quantum Physics appears random because we don't fully understand it yet.