I don't know where I'm going with this point or what it'll do to this discussion, but it just came to mind and I feel compelled to state it.
Much evidence coming from all of you suggests that "if all the science and technology says it does not exist, or is at least inconclusive, but all your senses and first hand experience prove you right, it's obviously right and you should go with your senses."
I don't know about you, but my sense organs aren't the most reliable in the world. There are optical illusions and mirages, for example. If a dude is walking in the desert, sees a mirage, and believes water is there, well, obviously it isn't and he's wrong. Any "instrument" would pick up no water in the area. So the instrument is right, and perception is wrong. First hand experience is wrong.
I can't reasonably answer this question at the moment: What makes psychic abilities different?
Should we instead class reality into three categories?
1) Things that are there whether you believe in them or not. Gravity and earth being round, for example.
2) Things that happen/appear when you believe in them, or are open to the experience. Psychic experiences, IM, etc.
3) Things that don't appear even if you believe in them. A mirage, dragons, and jabberwockies come to mind.