I think you are quite rude Plimmy with your "Nothing. Nada. Zip" bit - like a 12 year old smugly putting her fingers in her ears and going "lalala."
What exactly do you mean by there is no evidence for psychic connections, anyway? Whether you like it or not, anecdotal evidence is a type of evidence. And, depending on who's giving it, I am happy to listen to some anecdotal evidence without sneering. You're not; that's fine. But smugly stating there is "no evidence" is factually wrong.
I think it's fine to go over the arguments and test each other's point of view. And obviously there's a fancifulness to the 'woo' point of view that the sceptical side lacks.
But I dispute the absolute rigidity of the sceptics, and it's interesting to see how they respond to reasonable challenges. Some of them will not open their minds a crack.
For instance, no one has adequately responded to my questions about how you'd deal with new discoveries if they pushed boundaries that you absolutely believed in.
Some people seem to think that there's no possibilty of a new scientific discovery that could surprise them.
As for all the "have you considered that you might have been dreaming " stuff... Of course you must see how frustrating that is! Don't you think they've already been through all the mundane possibilities !! It's a bit like if you've got a really complex problem that you're struggling with, and someone comes along and suggests the most banal solution as if you're an idiot... It is patronising znd it's not helpful!
The truth is, even the most die-hard sceptic takes loads of stuff on trust every single day. But as soon as someone has an uncomfortable bit of experience to share with them, suddenly everything has to be triple-tested in a lab.
Many things can't be plotted on a graph. All of us accept this and stake quite a lot on these unprovable ideas. But as soon as there's a chance to be scornful and try to look clever, suddenly some people imagine they're Prof Brian Cox.