Helen: you said on the 26th

"I have seen no actual detailed analysis from you about any of the scientific articles. You make general, vague statements about why you don't believe in any of the studies and their outcomes."

You have studied statistics. Steve has studied and has expertise in various aspects of science.

My college degree is in Philosophy (logic and reasoning). I can attest that Steve's posts are clear, relevant and follow classical standards of discourse. The fact that he does not post long, turgid, and detailed examples of his points in no way makes them vague! To do so about most scientific disciplines would require more space and complexity than you...or even I.. would bother to read.
   The fact that you DO inundate us with statistics in no way supports your basic assumptions (that precognition and/or telepathy are 'likely').
   It would require more space and links to how Logical inference is derived than even you have posted about statistics.
You want to pursue it? be my guest

Once you have sorted out deduction, induction.. go on to abduction and the various informal fallacies.

You are welcome to **believe** anything you wish about various metaphysical concepts, but as has been said here .. and in many religious contexts, "The burden of proof is on the asserter."