"Prove" is a funny word. No, I can't "prove" there are no pink elephants in interstellar space. But based on our understanding of the universe, we can dismiss it out right. Claims of psychic powers are basically the same.

It's the celestial teapot.

You can't prove it's existence, but you can't disprove it either. Belief in it's existence is purely based on opinion, not fact.

"I like pizza" is an opinion. "I can read your thoughts" is a factual claim. We can test factual claims.

Sure, and "I can hear the ghosts around me" is not, and it's a waste of time for anyone trying to prove or disprove this opinion.

Which is fine, but often the claim is "The thing in this picture is a ghost." That's easily testable.

There IS a way to prove it--at least to yourself: learn Remote Viewing and you'll have direct experience. In the meantime, read about how the CIA has been using this non-local consciousness technology for decades:

https://www.google.com/search?q=website%3Afoia.cia.gov+remot...

The downside is that once you do it successfully, no one is going to believe you, anyway. :)

I have a way to get people to believe you: prove it.

What stronger proof is there than direct experience?

Edit: I would never want anyone to "believe" me, nor would I recommend anyone "believe" anything. There is only direct experience which brings knowledge, this is the standard for consciousness work.

> What stronger proof is there than direct experience?

Direct experience by a skeptical observer in a controlled environment.

Preferably backed up by a solid, provable null hypothesis and some statistics.

That's like saying there isn't anyway to prove or disprove a phenomenon of robbing a bank in broad daylight. It's beyond the limits of science. There was a quantum mechanical interaction that made it appear as if I was there, but I wasn't actually there.

We don't know anything with absolute certainty, we know many things with overwhelmingly great certainty.

Except you can observe a bank robbery, so that analogy is just a self-serving hypothetical.

I think psychics are a bunch of baloney too, but by definition the supernatural is not natural and not provable/disprovable. Let's not pretend that the act of disproving has some magic reach because then psychics or creationists or whoever will latch onto that overreach as a defense.

And why can't you observe a psychic? And write down what they say/predict? And make tests based on that?

If we can interact with something, even indirectly, we can perform experiments on it.

As I said above, you're right in that we can't prove a negative. But it's not a claim outside of science. They make claims which can be tested. When tested, their claims fail. When you repeat that enough times, you have amassed an incredible amount of negative evidence. When the body of negative evidence becomes overwhelming, it's reasonable to conclude that thing likely does not exist.