Could psi have a materialist explanation?

I guess I should rephrase it as how pluasable is a physicalist explanation for psi, as most treat it as a paradigm shifter if it does exist. Especially with the way it's tied to consciousness. 

Shouldve realized the term materialism is quite expandable actually, as what we consider "material" and the nature of it changes all the time

In reference to your opening post, the hypothetical question implied is: How was psi proven true? The only way that *happened was through science. Science deals with the material / physical aspects of this universe (as we all know) and if psi should be proven true that means no matter how mind blowingly counter intuitive unfamiliar it turns out to be it would be lumped in with the aforementioned isms.

* No other ism to date and the foreseeable future has answered the question you're posing.

Science deals with the material / physical aspects of this universe (as we all know) and if psi should be proven true that means no matter how mind blowingly counter intuitive unfamiliar it turns out to be it would be lumped in with the aforementioned isms.

You seem to be assuming that:
(1) Science deals only with the material/physical, and
(2) Everything true can be dealt with by science,
and concluding from those assumptions that therefore:
(3) Everything true is material/physical.

Obviously those assumptions are very questionable.

You seem to be assuming that:
(1) Science deals only with the material/physical, and
(2) Everything true can be dealt with by science,
and concluding from those assumptions that therefore:
(3) Everything true is material/physical.

Obviously those assumptions are very questionable.

(1) Science does not investigate metaphysics.
(2) How do you know something is true?
(3) Yes, everything that is proven true falls under those to isms. For example. Would you agree space is physical? If not, why. If so, why?  Name one thing that is true and was confirmed to be so by some other ism.

I also would like to extend an invitation for you to tell us more about your own thoughts and ideas, that would make for a more  interesting discussion than simply posing questions. The forum and all of us would be the richer for it.

I'll be honest, I do definitely get confused about the difference between materialism and physicalism. Even naturalism for the matter. So rather then saying one is open to interpretation rather then the other, I think I'm miscommunicating   

I'm honestly trying to hone in on what most psi researchers think the existence of non local consciousness disproves, which many proponents here indentify as materialism. Some like May claim that psi has an explanation that fits in this worldview, however. 

Personally, I don't think that psi has a materialistic mechanism or origin but who knows. If it did, that would suggest that there is a mechanism in the brain for psi. Since we are so clueless on how consciousness could possibly be created by the brain (alone), I don't even know how anyone could think the brain is responsible for psi too. That's my thought on it. 

Also, Ed May acts like psi possibly having a materialistic base automatically means no survival of consciousness. That really makes no sense to me, because he brings in quantum mechanics into the picture and if anything, quantum mechanics is such an open picture who knows where it will lead us. Survival is quite the open question through it

(1) Science does not investigate metaphysics.
(2) How do you know something is true?
(3) Yes, everything that is proven true falls under those to isms. For example. Would you agree space is physical? If not, why. If so, why?  Name one thing that is true and was confirmed to be so by some other ism.

Mostly I'd take issue with the assumption that the scientific method can't be applied to anything non-physical. You need to explain why you think that, rather than taking it as given.

Mostly I'd take issue with the assumption that the scientific method can't be applied to anything non-physical. You need to explain why you think that, rather than taking it as given.

Many people know the soul exists.  Describe how to build a soul detector. 
You didn't answer my space question and my ism question.

You didn't answer my space question and my ism question.

Well, I agree space is physical, but I really don't see where that gets you. Your other request, "Name one thing that is true and was confirmed to be so by some other ism", I don't really understand. We're talking about psi. I'd say science is capable of confirming that psi is "true", but I assume that by "isms" you mean material/physical.

A hardcore materialist might say there is already a ‘materialist explanation’ for psi: a weakness for p-hacking, and a love of fantastical stories.

Well, I agree space is physical, but I really don't see where that gets you. Your other request, "Name one thing that is true and was confirmed to be so by some other ism", I don't really understand. We're talking about psi. I'd say science is capable of confirming that psi is "true", but I assume that by "isms" you mean material/physical.

The reason I choose space as an example is because it has in common with psi no material substance, no physical properties it's nature is unknown, it is literally nothing and something at the same time and yet it is just as physical as any object you touch. In fact space is by far the strangest thing in the universe. If you'd like reasons why it is something I can provide them unless you already know.

Certain folks across the interwebs, this forum and certainly skeptiko outright sneer at materialism / physicalism waiting for that paradigm shift to immaterialism or some other ism that explains reality they are certain of. So far no other ism has come close to the success offered by materialism / physicalism paradigm. Now should psi be confirmed it will be through the prominent isms and become part of the material / physical isms.

Post 17 of yours. I wasn't implying science could not only that it does not. 

Desparado said something insightful. He said materialism is expandable in its definition.