One of the essential qualities contained in the scientific understanding of the world is repeatability. In the post quantum world this concept has been modified somewhat, especially on the small scales of space time. But on the larger everyday scale of common human experience the classical narrative of science still holds a great deal of power and usefulness. In that context, are there any thoughts on the potential 'hole' that exists in the scientific method of determining what is 'evidence' by insisting upon repeatability?

For example miracles. Visions. One off precognition. Twin telepathy and so on.

How much is based upon trust and personal experience in this regard? Is it actually so rare that most of us do not witness such events? Are we necessarily gullible to trust the reports of such phenomena from others? If not in either case, then are such phenomena profound? It seems to me quite possible that we do experience these kind of things, but many if not most of us, just push them to one side or explain them away as coincidence and delusion. Presumably the power of classical science is the cause of this tendency, so is it necessarily a good thing in that respect?

As a pagan I meet people who seem to have an eerie ability to pick up on things by what I can only describe as magical means. By that I mean they fall outside of classical science, in a worldly context where classical science appears for the most part to reign supreme. At the suggestion of taking synchronicity openly I have had personal experiences that are truly spooky. But for me they are rare and unpredictable. They happen to me, rather than what I can only conceive of as the next step which is proactive. But the more I am open to this stuff the more I tantalisingly feel I am getting 'closer' to tuning in.

Delusional? I guess I am bound to receive that honest appraisal. But how can we be sure? Anyone here on the same path so to speak? Gone a little further?

Another thought I have had on this matter is that classical science doesn't actually always posit one possibility. For example with regard to an explosion maintaining the conservation of energy, momentum, charge, angular momentum, probability distribution etc. throughout the entire process. An explosion is potentially infinite in the possible outcomes even according to classical science. So if a one off significant aspect of that explosion was that somebody survived, it doesn't necessarily contradict the classical scientific view of the explosion. It only potentially does so if we set up the gruesome experiment by repetition, that shows what the probability distribution of survival should be ?.... and say it is vanishingly small. But even then science would not say that such evidence of probability gained by repetition is proof of the magical, just proof of the scientifically rare. The magical would have to be repeated again and again.

So can science claim to always be able to impartially conduct such an experiment? For example precognitive dreams. Is it even possible, and does it make philosophical sense, to say that if such phenomena are not repeatably tested on a subject ?.. then the magical is not only possible but even more probable through the absence of such a test? Ie the repeatability within the scientific experiment might itself affect the personal observation of magical phenomena. Further, science demands the repeatability of rare magical phenomena itself, which may be a contradiction in terms of what is magical.

Is this train of thought necessarily just sophistry? Or is it trust? Is it spiritually significant? Any further reading?

I use the word magical but equally supernatural, paranormal, spiritual and other words apply. (Also I wasn't quite sure which branch of philosophy to put this thread.)

It seems to me that if we don't listen to the world we are less likely to hear it. The call of science is often loud and so we are daft not to listen to it, but does that preclude the existence of quieter voices?