Felice: Forgive me, I overstated my position: A good alternate theory with scientific support (veterinary evidence that dogs lack the proper vocal structure, say) is entirely sufficient. I said proof, what I really meant was a decently supported alternate theory. Dragons myths coming from ancient finds of dinosaur bones, for example. Shed doubt, please! But let it be reasonable scientific doubt. If you just say, I have never heard my dog speak, that isn’t sufficient to suggest that dogs can’t speak. You have to add the rest of your supporting data. Such supporting data is why I don’t beleive in the ‘psychic readings’ process - heck, I do tarot… I certainly can’t track where I get my info from, or why I choose one meaning of a card over another - but that is what intuition is about. Intuition is highly studied, and proven to exist as a normal human brain process. I suspect that a lot of ‘real psychics’ are intuitively using cold-reading techniques, and just don’t know it.
glee: Did I sound like I expected you to beleive ghosts or souls exist? That would require conversion to my specific faith, which process I would find abhorrant. Your faith is your own, BELEIVE what you want. I had an experience (or three…). I expect only that you beleive that I had these experiences (the facts, not the meaning), not that they are caused by the same things I believe they are caused by. Feel free to beleive I had a seizure, if it suits you. Or that my subconscious did some creative editing. I don’t think that (presuming ghosts/souls do exist) THEY care if you believe or not, either. Otherwise, you’d surely have had a similar experience yourself. It is absolutely no skin off my nose if you believe they do not exist. I only take offense to people saying they cannot exist simply because there is no proof that they do. Semantics, but then, you asked a writer.
The whole argument seems to be another science-vs.-faith one, really. It is a matter of what you BELIEVE, with or without the presence of scientific facts/data.
“I don’t believe they exist, and I will not believe they exist until they are scientifically proven to exist.” FINE with me. Your theology/philosophy plus science. I respect this position.
“They do not exist BECAUSE they are not proven to exist.” BAD, in my book. Personal philosophy = science. Belief that they do not exist is stated as fact or science, instead of BELIEF. This is what I call ‘blind faith in science.’ It is a very rigid position, too. What, did brains not have electrical function until they were proven to? Was the world flat before we proved it was round? Logic says that the proven condition existed before we proved it (in most cases). Therefore until something is proven, there are a LOT of possible answers, not just one.
“They MUST exist even though there is no proof for their existence.” BAD - theology overrules science. Usually from strong faith, but also pretty rigid. Again, only one possibility is allowed, despite lack of supporting evidence.
Even worse, “They must exist even though you have provided solid or respectable evidence that something else is going on, and can identify what that something is, repeat it under controlled situations, etc.” Blind faith, basically covering the ears and singing LA LA LA as loud as you can. Someone can’t step outside their pre-set definitions of the universe. What they want to beleive is stronger than reality.
“They might exist even though there is currently no proof for their existence.” FINE by me - theology/belief again is the basis, but belief is not equated to fact. This is my position. If you provide me with data to create a reasonable doubt, I’ll change my position to ‘they probably don’t exist’ and if you provide me with a LOT of doubt, I’ll go for ‘they don’t exist.’ Faith is strong, but not impervious to reason. 
(I’m noted for annoying people by saying ‘so far as we KNOW’ - I’m perpetually in doubt.)
And one I haven’t seen here explicitly, but have heard before, “Even if you give me proof they exist, I still won’t believe you.” BAD. Totally blind faith in science, rejection of anything outside the box (singing LA LA LA…). Validating the trial/proof methods is smart, though…
Tons of subtle shadings, too, like, “Even though you have proof they do not exist, I beleive that something supernatural is working THROUGH that method.” That is, fake psychics are also psychic, but just think they are faking. (OUCH, my head hurts!)
Personally, for scientifically unexplainable experiences, I apply beleif. Beleif is theology or philosophy. Faith. Which has nothing to DO with science, and more to do with personal meaning. IMHO, it is just as wrong to say such things can not exist to someone who has faith in them, as it is to say God does not exist to someone who beleives in God. You might DO that, but I bet people think you are a jerk if you do. I know there are people here who think anyone who beleives in God/Higher-Power/etc is deluding themselves. And there are people here who think that anyone who DOESN’T believe in a higher power is delusional, too. Both are issues of faith - presence or lack thereof. Anyone here see ‘Leap of Faith’ with Steve Martin?
A good scientist doesn’t decide they are right before the proof is finished. There has to be enough doubt to be able to see the unexpected solution, or even one that is a little off to the side of the one you thought was most likely. You have to be willing to be WRONG in order to find TRUTH. Heck, maybe my favored theory is wrong, too (entirely possible). I’m open to that possibility. Guess I won’t know until I die, if someone doesn’t provide me my doubt-inducing alternate data before then. I actually wish someone WOULD come up with a good study of these experiences! Comparative brain scans maybe?
