No. I'm sure that there continues to be some studies that conform to scientific standards being done. As long as there are enough people that believe in the possibillity, there will continue to be efforts to find evidence. But after hundreds and hundreds of attempts and nothing to show for it, you get to a point where you can say something about the odds. ESP senses fall in the same category of odds as bigfoot, alien abductions, alien origins of crop circles, loch ness monster, el chupacabra, ghosts, etc.

We say we have five senses, because those are our major ones, we actually are aware of other sensory stimuli like acceleration, kinesthetics, balance and even echolocation to a very small extent. Science has defined other natural senses in other animals such as magnetic and electrical field senses and to pressure from depth.

Everyone of these are natural senses to real things that, even though we can't detect by ourselves, we can detect with our technnologies. We have evidence for these, we have discovered these, but the sense that you talk of has been specifically looked for, researched, and studied without turning up anything to support it's existence.

We can discover things we never dreamed could exist but can't turn up evidence for senses like you're talking about.

This fact should say something...

Cool - thanks for your explanation.

So what you are saying then is that the "complete failure of rationality (that) is so prevalent in religious thought that it qualifies as epedemic" also spreads to the scientific world. It follows then that you "don't think there could be a clearer example of exactly why (scientific) arguments are completely invalid."

I will keep this in mind as I read your posts about Science.

Just so you know, I have a much higher opinion of science than this.

Obviously I am just messing with you. But if you could tone down the tone a little, it would be easier to have a real dialog on these things.

Heathen - I am curious about your take on psychology being a science.

i think science is only as good as its ability to distinguish factors and variables as precisely as possible in order to illustrate a fundamental principle that is demonstrable and repeatable.

for this reason i am quite skeptical of psychology and psychiatry because of the volume of factors involved in the subject matter and the resulting complexities involved in balancing considerations. in short, i think it is too imprecise to be called good science, yet anyway.

computers can and i'm sure will be the way forward in this area.

As long as any axiom is involved, then faith is always involved.

According to Kurt Godel, there will always be axioms.

Therefore, faith will always be needed.

I've said it once and I will say it again. The Earth is not flat. Just because most of the known world believes something is true, does not make it so.

That is 'ad populum', and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

Last time I checked, my bible says:
Isa 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

OK, if you are going to be extremely literal about the terms (even though you infer in have of your bible posts to mean something other than what it says), then a circle is 2-dimensional not 3D like a sphere or globe.

Is there a Hebrew word for sphere?

no