We have inherited a particular story about how knowledge works. Science observes. Science tests. Science replicates. And whatever cannot survive that process is not, properly speaking, knowledge at all. It is a powerful story. It has given us vaccines and transistors and the ability to predict where a spacecraft will be in thirty years. I am not here to dismantle it. But I am here to ask: what does that story leave out? And more pointedly, what does it leave out by design?

The standard framework for burden of proof was developed for scientific claims about objective, repeatable phenomena. Anomalous experiences often don't fit neatly into that framework. When I claim precognition, I'm not claiming a general law of physics. I'm reporting specific experiences that happened to me and, in many cases, experiences I can reproduce. The epistemology is different. And that means the burden of proof question is more complex than it first appears.