Sure we do. Just use a flashlight with your regular passive vision. 
A sense of deception might be handy for social animals like man. I realize that some people have developed this as a skill (as opposed to a sense) by weighing all sorts of factors and analyzing them. But an ability to outright detect a lie might make life interesting — possibly in both good and bad ways.
Another might be a sense of intention. It has been said that we tend to judge ourselves by our intentions, and others by their behavior. So it might be interesting to be able to sense what someone else’s intentions are.
Both of these seem rather impossible, though. How could you detect lies and intentions?
Oops, sorry! It looks like I misread the question. It appears that you’re asking for epistemic possibilities.
Workers at Chernobyl reported a tingling sensation upon exposure to the radiation, so you can sense the radiation, at least when it’s very powerful.
We do have the ability to sense gravity, as a separate “sense.” The sacculus and the utriculus of the inner ear contain grains of calcium carbonate (otoliths) whose position relative to hair cells allows us to detect the direction of gravitational force.
Note that we have several senses in addition to the traditional five (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch). Touch in particular is really a set of several different senses governed by different receptors.
Additional senses include:
-
gravity, detected by the sacculus/utriculus
-
acceleration (which together with the sense of gravity is sometimes considered the “sense of balance”), detected by the semicircular canals of the inner ear
-
proprioception, or sense of the position of the parts of one’s own body, (e.g. being able to tell the position of one’s arm without looking at it), detected by receptors contained within our bodies.
“touch” is composed of the senses of light pressure (“touch”), deep pressure, heat, cold, and pain, all detected by distinct receptors.
I wouldn’t agree with this. The magnetic and electric senses, which some animals have and which we lack, are rather different from anything that humans have.
The problem with most of those senses is that none of them are critical and most of them are esentially useless. The basics: sight, smell/taste, touch, and hearing are useful to almost any organism. On the other hand, humans don’t ned to migrate according a preset pattern, we don’t need to find tiny insects in the dark, etc.
So they could not evolve that way.
But a sense of magnetism would certainly be useful to us, since through algood part of our history we have been wide-ranging foragers. Just because we use a different set of senses to navigate doesn’t mean a different one wouldn’t be handy if we have it.
While I don’t really consider “sonar” a separate sense, having it certainly would have been useful for primitive hunters by making it easier to hunt in the dark. Sonar is used not just for detecting insects, but also for detection of obstacles in the environment.
I’m not so sure - early humans may not have needed to be active at night.
Senses are just the result of biological structures that have been built up to process and amplify physical stimuli. So, in one way of speaking, there can be nothing new, because we have a set range of stimuli. But, there’s always the possibility of new ways of processing it, or amplifying it. Sure, we have RF/light receptors in our eyes, but they’re not built to bring in 850kHz and demodulate it. The AM sense would be a new one, for us, even though it would be pretty much just a radio.
Just imagine how handy a sense of dowsing could have been.
Yes, but it certainly could have been beneficial.
The adaptations developed by particular organisms, such as sensory capacities, depend on a complex interaction of pre-existing morphological potential, earlier evolutionary history, plus selective forces. Trying to explain the evolution of certain capabilities (or the lack of them) a posteriori based on the subjective assessment of what was “needed” is very problematic.
This statement is clearly untrue, and seems to be based largely on a lack of appreciation for how much other organisms’ senses and needs differ from our own. An electric sense is very important, even critical, to some fish that live in muddy water, and much more important to them than a sense of sight (which some of these electrical-detecting fish have nearly lost). There are plenty of organisms which do perfectly well with poor or no sight, which humans regard as critical. Our sense of smell, on the other hand, is relatively useless compared to the capabilities of many other organisms, for which it is vital.
This overlaps with what Colibri said, but the way homing pigeons find their way home hasn’t been totally explained yet. Sensing the Earth’s electromagnetic field is a large part of it, but that doesn’t explain the whole phenomenon. Homing pigeons have been known (according to Rupert Sheldrake on www.sheldrake.org) to find objects that had been moved miles and miles away while the pigeons were away. Sensing the Earth’s electromagnetic field doesn’t explain that.
Sheldrake proposes a morphogenetic field. Things that have happened very often, leave a trail, much like waliking through a thorny bush often creates a path. That trail, that path, makes it easier to follw the same path. According to Sheldrake, pigeons use their sense for morphogenetic fields to come home. Humans don’t sense it, but are influenced by it.
That’s why certain things, like learning the alphabet, are easier and easier for every new generation, even for children who have not been raised with Sesame Street.
I must admit I don’t understand it completely, but I think it’s fascinating. Sheldrake uses truly sientific methods to research his theories.
Many people on the SDMB however think Sheldrake is an impostor. Or just plain wrong.
This is kind of boring, but we could have the ability to sense whether light is polarized or not.
Of course, you can gain this sense by wearing polaroid sunglasses and rotating your head side to side.
Based on my own knowledge of the literature on the subject, Sheldrake’s description of the state of knowledge is utter rubbish.
Please cite a study in a legitimate scientific journal demonstrating this.
If he does, it is not evident on the basis of the kind of stuff he has on his site.
That’s because we’re interested here in fighting ignorance, not promoting it.
Humans actually do have a slight ability to detect polarized light without visual aids, a phenomenon known as Haidinger’s brushes.
Birds and especially insects have a much greater ability to detect polarized light.
Very interesting… I’m completely Haidinger blind.