To say that it hasn't been measured reliably belies the fact that the very existence of telepathy has not been substantiated.
FTL nonsense is still nonsense.
Hmm... I could have sworn I said this:
You did, which, as I said, makes it completely incongruous to try to make the point that "we have not developed any reliable way to measure telepathy."
However, since you seem to think that the two statements go together, with your use of the words
definitely [sic - better would be
definitively] and
reliable, your two statements there sound like you're suggesting that telepathy has
some evidential support, but just nothing definite yet. And, it sounds like you're suggesting that support for telepathy would increase, if only it could be measured more reliably.
No. That's wrong. Telepathy doesn't have
any support. It has zilch. Nada. It hasn't even been measured
at all, whether reliably, unreliably, definitely, indefinitely, definitively, or inconclusively.
Again, your use of the word
reliable is entirely redundant. Also, the way you've constructed your assertion in the boldfaced part frankly suggests that there is a realistic possibility that we could someday measure it, or in fact that we already have albeit unreliably, both of which are false.
As for FTL being nonsense... for now, it's called "suspension of disbelief" - something we all do every time we sit down to enjoy a Star Trek episode (or any other show that uses FTL technology). For the future... I think we need to realize that we don't know everything yet. It's not irrational to hope that some day somebody will figure out a way to make it work, or at least discover an alternate way that will achieve the same end results.
Actually, I didn't mean
by that that FTL is nonsense. By "FTL nonsense is still nonsense" what I meant was that using FTL as an adjective to modify a noun that represents a form of nonsense still leaves you with nonsense. What was under discussion was "FTL telepathy", in which FTL is an
adjective. Although I didn't think I needed to because of the context, I probably could have worded that less ambiguously, say as: "
An FTL faerie is still a faerie."
My point was that "FTL telepathy" is still a form of telepathy. "FTL telepathy" isn't somehow more legitimate than telepathy generally. The only reason it isn't less so is because nonsensical nonsense is still just nonsense.
As F.M. Busby said in The Long View (one of my favorite novels from a series that does use relativity as a fundamental part of the plot) when a character does discover FTL: "Einstein wasn't wrong... He just didn't have all the facts."
I'm fairly sure we don't have all the facts, either.
True, we don't have all the facts.
Whether FTL or telepathy might theoretically be discovered someday is an entirely separate question from whether they have any evidential support. They have none. There are some theoretical reasons to suggest that FTL could, hypothetically, be possible, but nothing concrete has yet been demonstrated. Absolutely nothing.
It's also worth pointing out that, given the body of evidence that we have, the discovery of FTL or telepathy are events that realistically have a low probability of occurring.
The fact that we don't have all the facts can't be twisted to support the reality of such fantastic concepts. At best, that ignorance in not having all the facts, which is an essential element of the human condition, only prevents
all hope that they could be real from being closed off.
