/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15555100]

Is there any valid science behind extra sensory perception?

[Anonymous No.15555117]

no, and there will never be
(scientists would never address extrasensory perception if it was real because to do so would be to suggest that there's something that they couldn't explain and that the existent science that they helped make wasn't perfect)

[Anonymous No.15555175]

>>15555117
So you're saying it's a psychological version of dark matter or singularity eh?

[Anonymous No.15555300]

>>15555100
no but thats mostly because science has no idea how the brain works

[Anonymous No.15555316]

>>15555100
I mean the closest shit grounded in reality would be stuff like synesthesia, or savant abilities like perfect pitch, math skills, or photographic memory, all of which are pretty poorly understood.

[Anonymous No.15555323]

>>15555100
I've had results feeling the space outside my skull with my brain and that can make some weird subliminal effects. Its uncanny like infrared vision illuminating dark space and penetrating solid matter to reveal awareness's access to space and the em field.

[Anonymous No.15555327]

>>15555117
>suggest that there's something that they couldn't explain and that the existent science that they helped make wasn't perfect
What? Both these things are commonly accepted by scientists you knuckle dragging retard

[Anonymous No.15555330]

>>15555100
There are many but they are not extra
balance, reflexes, sense of pressure, humidy and warmth
color, distance, brightness
idk some pH stuff

[Anonymous No.15555336]

>>15555327
that's what they say, but not what they do
>What's that? We can't explain the gravitational situation of the Milky Way? It's calling our models into question? Well, uh, we just... can't see what's responsible! Yeah! It's invisible and we can never ever detect it beyond the forces it happens to exert to comply perfectly with our models!
>Eh? The universe is increasing at an increasing rate, running contrary to our models? Well, that's in line with our models, too, actually, because there's a super-special component of the universe that we can never detect directly that's responsible for it so that it lines up perfectly with our models!
>Hmm? There's a conflict between data obtained from Cepheid variables versus the CMB? Well, clearly there's just some unexplained phenomenon at work that fits perfectly into our otherwise-flawless models. There's no chance whatsoever that our models could be outright wrong, because we made them!
>Quantum mechanics and general relativity don't line up? Well, there's no shot either of them is outright wrong. We just haven't looked hard enough for a way to reconcile them, is all!

[Anonymous No.15555346]

Quantum entanglement