My issue is how difficult it is to have a conversation about various phenomena (UFOs, crop circles, spiritual experiences, near-death and out of body experiences, telepathy, etc.) that are clearly widespread. Once again, I think it boils down to the rational scientific lens. Phenomena must be observable, predictable, measurable, and repeatable. But again, if we can’t control the phenomena, if indeed they are, say, trans or inter dimensional in nature, we also can’t control the experiments. We might only be perceiving artifacts that are accessible to our possibly limited five senses. For one, if they are extradimensional, we can’t fully perceive the entirety of said phenomena, nor the context they originate from.
I don’t think it is difficult to have a conversation, but, for the conversation to appeal to a scientist, it cannot require the scientist to take anything on faith. I don’t think any real scientist would say there definitely is no such thing as UFOs or that telepathy is physically impossible, because scientists understand that there is so much to the universe that we simply do not know. If they are like me, they would just say they have yet to be convinced that these things are real, but that the door remains open. I have to say, though, that it is telling that nobody has claimed the prize in the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. This is by no means proof that the paranormal doesn’t exist but, it does raise the question that, if paranormal phenomena are so common, why does this prize continue to go unclaimed?
Regarding experiments being predictable, measurable, and repeatable being a necessary component of science, I would say that is untrue in the case of many fields of science, such as astrophysics. We cannot control when two black holes billions of parsecs away collide, and we cannot predict or influence the celestial dynamics on display at KIC 8462852. I wish we had a proven telepathyscope to point toward KIC 8462852, but we do not have such a thing, so we’re limited to using telescopes to gather data about it. We can use this empirical evidence to assemble theories about these phenomena that we observe in deep space, but we are presently unable to devise experiments to test said phenomena. Further data gathered in the future can be used, however, to falsify claims that we make today, so we are still dealing in falsifiables.
To me it becomes dogmatic to insist upon evidence that appeals to our rational worldview limited by our five primary senses and our particular dimensional reality. Theoretical physics, I must say, does a better job of using mathematical equations to predict possible outcomes beyond our current ability to perceive them. String/M theory is very clear about multidimensionality, even though we can’t perceive other dimensions, per se. But what if some people can? Those, perhaps, who have developed what we might call extrasensory perception? What if ET hails from 5D? Most of us can’t even wrap our heads around what other dimensional realities could look or feel like, let alone how 5D phenomena bleeding through could look like to us.
I agree with you completely that the hyperdimensional nature of spacetime means that there are many possibilities for things beyond our present understanding, things that could easily transcend our senses. I am in the camp, for instance, that believes quantum phenomena such as the Uncertainty Principle and tunneling could be linked to hyperdimensional activity, but that we have not devised methods of observing or measuring this yet.
In that light, if there are people who can perceive things in higher dimensions, then it should be verifiable. If you can observe the motion of a particle in higher dimensions, then you can make testable predictions about its future position and momentum that observers constrained to fewer dimensions cannot. So, too, with myriad phenomena. If you can perceive things other people can’t, then it means you have data they do not have and can make testable predictions they cannot. If people want to claim access to so-called extrasensory perception, it is on them to make concrete claims about what that means and then be open to having it tested; it is not on me to just believe them because they said so. If they can do it, then it’s on the scientists to figure out why. It’s like Usain Bolt. Everyone saw him run a 9.572 second 100 meter dash, but it’s up to the scientists to figure out why he could do that and you and I cannot.
And, that’s just it: science isn’t about being an arbiter who decides what is and is not possible. Science is about discovering what is possible and trying to understand why.