quote
The first dictionary result for the term “paranormal” is “not scientifically explainable”.
Therefore, anything categorized as “paranormal” or “supernatural” can have no direct relevance
to science by definition. There is a wide variety of ideas that tend to be classified as
“paranormal”, ranging from ideas about human capacities, like “precognition”, “clairvoyance”,
“telepathy”, and “psychokinesis”, to ideas about other forms of intelligent life, like aliens or
ghosts. This is a very unfortunate situation, however. For, this categorization would inhibit
scientific understanding of such phenomena in the case that they turned out to be real.
To illustrate some of the problems with categorizing a certain idea as “paranormal”, let us
consider the following scenario: Imagine that telepathy was real. Imagine, further, that there
existed a certain amount of evidence for telepathy. Finally, imagine that telepathy was
categorized as a “paranormal” phenomenon (as it generally is). On the one hand, certain people
might accept the evidence for telepathy, and come to be convinced of the reality of telepathy.
But, they could not possibly come to understand telepathy in a rigorous way as long as they
continued to categorize telepathy as a “paranormal” phenomenon. For, again, paranormal
phenomena are, by definition, essentially mysterious– inherently impenetrable to human
understanding in principle. On the other hand, other people, who were of a mind to think that no
phenomena is fundamentally mysterious and that everything that is real is subject to
understanding, would be inclined to dismiss the evidence for telepathy out of hand simply
because telepathy was categorized as a “paranormal” phenomenon, and therefore, by their view,
unreal. In both cases, then, the phenomenon of telepathy, though real, would remain outside of
the realm of human understanding. On one hand, because people accepted the reality of telepathy
based on the evidence for it, but rejected the idea of understanding it by viewing it as
“paranormal”; on the other hand, because people dismissed the evidence for telepathy out of an
impulse to reject all ideas labeled “paranormal”.
end of quote
You have it backwards. Telepathy is not "rejected" but it is virtually impossible to quantify. Here is an example
quote
What does telepathically communicate mean?
te·lep·a·thy tə-ˈlep-ə-thē : apparent communication from one mind to another without speech or signs. telepathic.
end of quote'
The author is not seemingly aware of how much communication, inference and all that can be transmitted by non verbal signals. I as am example am hard of hearing. When my hearing was tested, I was told NOT to look directly at an examiner trying to say words for me to identify, i.e. hard of hearing people can intuit the meaning of other peoples actions and responses at times through non verbal means.
The entire idea of telepathy pre supposes that there is NO communication between one person and other through the traditional senses. In the matter of testing
quote
by CM BEADNELL · 1938 — IT is probable that most psychologists and practically all physiologists regard the evidence in support of 'clairvoyance' and 'telepathy' as worthless
end of quote]
I agree it is worthless because people are excellent pattern recognition "experts" up to a point and that much of alleged telepathy is of very precise of inference to guess, at times extremely accurately certain would be assumed signals or the likelihood of such signals being transmitted.
It. is a whopping under estimation of just how good a set of 'guessers" even supposedly AVERAGE IQ people are, and is in a sense extremely insulting.
The telepathy paradigm regards people as partly robotic automatons, and they are far from that, and the guess work people employ in the acquisition and use of human speech can be astounding.
