There's always a certain amount of faith involved in people's opinions about stuff that can't be (or hasn't yet been) proven.

But it works like this:

The person who thinks that there may be some sort of subtle awareness involved in animals or people feeling that they are being observed bases it on 2 things:

1. Direct observation (of others) and experience (of self).
2. Faith that it may be so that there is some additional sense involved. The faith, in this case, is based on past direct observation and experience...although it cannot be proven yet. It is informed faith, however, because it arises out of experience. It's not absolutely conclusive, but it is based on actual experience.

The skeptic who believes that there CAN'T BE any extra or as yet unknown sense involved bases his or her opinion on ONE thing only.

1. Faith. Faith based on past assumptions.

He or she has absolute faith that it can't be so, because it just can't, that's all. Because it can't. And he or she knows it. Yessiree!

Impressive. Such people should form a faith-based religion all their own, based on not believing anything they don't already believe...and clinging tenaciously to anything they already DO believe, regardless of experience. ;-)

Matter of fact, I guess they've already done that, haven't they?