With all due respect, I think you guys need to get out more. Have you really never been exposed to the mountains of psychic research that has been done? It is overwhelmingly confirming.

Pick up the book The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot. Its an interesting read and will give to a starting point with references to much more material. Or if you're really hard-headed go for the old JB Rhine stuff. His statistical analyses are virtually fool-proof, and you can even repeat them yourself if you're still not convinced. (Years ago I did so, and the results are what really broke the belief barrier for me.)

Conventional science resists all of this because it can't explain it, and because it expands the world much more than they would like it expanded. This is nothing new - scientists have been egotistical and narrow-minded throughout history, rejecting the new and clinging to the old, until it literally rolled over them. The same was and is true in physics. Quantum physicists have long observed the connection between mind and matter, another psychic phenomena. The only reason QM is accepted as much as it is is because it gives us computers and other toys. They may not be able to locate an electron, but the statistics are good enough that a computer will run nevertheless.

Go out there, read and get to know more than just what dusty scientists are telling you. There are many incredibly bright people - scientists - who work in these areas. Even many of the famous names you know - many of those people delved heavily into these areas. But you have to go to them. The lazy system will not bring them to you, and will often misrepresent them. Hear what they have to say and the research that has been done for decades, even centuries. Belief is not required. Merely an open and inquisitive mind.

In fact MANY scientists go into this area for the purpose of debunking it, and end up being the greatest proponents. These are the REAL scientists, because they acknowledge their results, regardless of ego.

I don't know what else to tell you. If you hide away and won't look at the evidence, obviously you won't see it. And many people just don't want to see it, so that is how they operate. IMO they miss out on some of the most fascinating stuff being done on this planet.

EDIT: I might add that it's been a long time since I researched psychic phenomena per se... I encounter it in other larger fields, such as QM, but I don't know what the latest work being done is, or the best modern books to suggest on the subject. I suggested Talbot because he references a lot. Overall I would suggest researching it a bit, and reading a variety of material. I went back to the modern beginning - J.B. Rhine's work in the 50's, and started from there. Nuts and bolts - I like to see how it began and where it went. Yet a lot has been done since then. You will find no lack of studies and data to review. Just beware of people with an agenda to mock or misrepresent it. Read the source material, not just popular articles about it, and form your own conclusions.

Yes, I have seen the "mountains of research", if by that you mean the ONE peer-reviewed journal dedicated to parapsychology that is available on ScholarsPortal. A search on PubMed finds several articles in psychology journals as well. Much of this research shows that certain people are able to perform certain tasks (such as guessing cards) slightly better than pure chance would dictate.

So what? To me, that does not imply ESP. One of the first things you should learn in science is the difference between correlation and causation. I know that this mistake is made many times in many fields, but it seems to be especially prevalent in psychology, and not limited to parapsychology. Psychology in general is considered by many to be a "pseudo science" as it is very difficult to create unbiased studies and to draw conclusions from the statistical results objectively.

I read an interesting article by an obvious believer in paranormal activity (An assessment of the evidence for psychic functioning, Utts, Jessica, The Journal of Parapsychology; Dec 1995; 59, 4; ProQuest Psychology Journals, pg. 289) She concluded that the evidence is, as you say, overwhelming, and that it is obvious that paranormal activity does exist. However, she then recommended that psychic researchers stop looking for proof, and start looking for the mechanism of how this ability works. I may not agree with her first conclusion, but I do agree with the second. I believe that if psychologists started to actually look into this mechanism, they would find that their statistical results have an explanation that works within the bounds of physics and biology.

Scientists are not dusty.. Sounds like you need the conclusions to be spectacular? If there was experimental ground for ESP and such, they would take it seriously. Scientists are not convinced by crappy (selective)statistics, and non double blind experiments. Nor are they impressed by magic tricks.
If i had time (I really have to work on my bachelor research.)I would be able to look at some of those experiments that supposedly prove psychic abilities.

you just read about it and researched nothing for yourself, that's just hypocritical.

Ridiculous misinformation. There are many scientists working in this field in many ways, and many books on the subject. Just the way you're describing the field shows your ignorance. There are many mainstream journals that belittle the work that has been done. If you read those, obviously you will hear what they have to say. If you read the researchers' work, you will hear differently.

Go hide your head in the sand if that makes you more comfortable. It doesn't change anything for the rest of us. We still have this amazing universe to explore. You think I wish to change your mind?

There are also many people who study HOW it works, but THAT it works is very clear. I believe it is clear to anyone who openly looks at the data. I've yet to see anyone explain it any other way. Even non-randomness in card selection, a very old experiment from the 50's, is mighty tough to explain away when you have thousands of samples. It becomes statistically untenable. Nor is the deviation from randomness "slight" as you misrepresented. We use statistics in many areas of science, such as QM. Your computer would not exist without it. The location of an electron cannot be determined with certainty. It is merely a probability, just like some of the psychic data.

But it's clear your mind is closed - so, live like that. Whatever floats your boat.

Some are, some are not. There are many scientists who have extremely narrow and rigid views, based more in ego than anything else. This has been evident throughout history.

I observe what is.

History tells a very different story of scientists.

You're fooling yourself. Feel better? You merely reveal your ignorance by making statements like that. If you really think parapsychologists and other researchers haven't addressed those issues, then get educated. It was addressed way back in the 50's.

Someday I hope you do so with an open mind. That's all I'm suggesting. I'm not showing you the data and trying to prove anything to you. You can examine that for yourself. But you seem to have come to some limited conclusions already based on popular beliefs. I would discard that.

There's a lot of things I'd like to reply, but for now, why don't we just agree to disagree before you start assuming that I'm a total blockhead whose mind is closed to anything and who doesn't wish to explore the universe? Just because I'm not convinced by the research on ESP doesn't mean that I ignore it. Instead, I'm looking at the evidence that's presented to me and I'm actually thinking about it.

I don't suppose you're one of those people who believe things in things like "mucoid plaques", are you?

Rubbish. And what do you know about what I have done and have not done?

In fact I have done research myself, as well as reviewing the research of others. I said so in my post above about JB Rhine. I repeated his experiments and mathematics, with myself and others, in addition to other extensive work in the area. At this point, the question of whether psychic phenomena exists is like asking me if water exists. It is obviously apparent to me, and I've moved on. People can say whatever they want about it being 'unproven'. They've been saying it all for decades, regardless of the spectacular developments and demonstrated mysteries. Blah blah blah.

Not that personal research is necessary. I'm just hard-headed so I wanted to see it. It is possible to read of research and develop an informed opinion. We do so in many areas. If you refuse to believe what any researcher says, I would say you're taking skepticism to an unhealthy level where it becomes simple denial. If you're happy there, then good for you.

If you think ignorance only exists among uneducated people, guess again. Cleverness is not a substitute for genuine intelligence, and many very smart people never develop the latter.

Also, most of these fields require deliberate inspection and involvement. Chances are, you won't take a college course on them, not even an introductory one. Such courses exist, but they are not routine. Areas like this involve going out there a bit and researching. (And despite what you say, library work is a valid form of research.)

My mind opens and closes constantly. I find it impossible for me to remain aware of everything at all times. Besides, my mind is closed to subjects I am not aware exists now that I may discover later. However, when one addresses my "closed mindedness" at any given time, I try to not take offense to those words. Sometimes being "closed minded" simply means I am not seeing a subject from anothers perspective. Take all words with a grain of salt, it's healthier that way. And give the communicator the benefit of your best efforts to understand without being insulted..

Fair enough. I have no need for you to agree with my view. Based on what you have said, I think you should research it more deeply, rather than just relying on "what is presented to you". Often in these fields, the people who go out of their way to present things to you are merely seeking to dismiss or distort the work of the researchers. The denial is often insidious.

Frankly, I don't know how you could rationally dismiss the research if you've been exposed to the majority of it. It is beyond compelling. For example, what of the recent research on DNA responding to emotions at distances of miles, beyond the speed of light? That is one example I would like to see you explain to me. There are thousands and thousands of such experiments waiting for explanations. I don't see how you could conclude anything, except that conventional science has a lot of phenomena it can't explain.

But this kind of research also opens many more questions than it closes, which is why many people shut it out entirely. Personally, I love it. It reminds me that most of the common sense beliefs humans hold are nonsense. It is a science that is also magical. I love combining the part of me which is scientific and demands proof with the part of me that loves magic. It is delicious when they agree.

Not familiar with that. However, I will say that based on what I have seen, just because conventional medical circles deny something in no way means it is untrue by default.

That's an excellent observation. That's why sometimes it's good to pick up a book about something 'out there'. It stretches the mind... again.

I love exploring things like psychic research because the universe becomes larger, and my mind opens to encompass more of it.

I'm more of an introspective person.

That's where the universe is - inside.

Bachelor research? In the U.S. that's an exception, and not very common. What field? I'm curious.

I'm aware of that. I think many of those involved in this discussion are thinking from an extropective perspective.

When you talk to god, it is called a prayer.
When god talks to you, it is called schizophrenia.
Isn't that strange?

/ Fox Mulder, FBI

The Bachelor research is a project at the end of ones bachelor, which takes a quarter of a year.(usually done in half a year half-time) (bunch of years ago the bachelor-master system was implemented in the Netherlands) Earlier I had a seminar instead, but failed that miserably.
Anyway, I study physics and my bachelor research is about the CP and PCPD process. These processes are simulated and take place on a field of A's and 0's, like A0A00A00 etc. CP is the following replacement processes executed at random positions on the field, rates give their relative ammounts:
A->0 with rate 1
A00->AA0 and 00A->0AA with rate p/2
A0A->AAA with rate p
A value for p, p_c is the threshold below with it dies off, above which it goes to constant density. It turns out that the process near p_c has scaling laws, in density-time relation but also in holesize-count relations.(and probably in sizeempty-age-count) This has not really been proven theoretically though. But it sure looks like it experimentally with simulations. The idea that the different exponents in the different processes fall into different universality classes, and that many different non-equilibrium processes are either somehow constructed from different universality classes, or belong to them.
My research is about a way of determining p_c, doing this with a constant-density simulation. The replacement processes are converted in another process which leaves density constant.

Sir, this is both a scientific and philosophical question.

The scientific side is handled by science. Detailed models taking into account all constants and variables in our universe. God is not a model, so we can't shift things onto God just because we don't know which theory is correct.

I haven't got a problem with someone publishing a paper fully explaining how "god" can fit into this, but I find it unlikely. God should not be a god-of-the-gaps. My personal opinion is that expanding the idea of God to things scientific is both and insult to science and to faith. This applies to the christian god, islamic, etc.