In response to your first point, it depends who you read. Even if they are the majority, however, they may still be subject to bias, even if unconscious. Materialism is, after all, the dominant paradigm. Arguments and discussions usually have little effect. What normally convinces someone of ESP or anything else paranormal is a personal experience. I’ve had such experiences, so it doesn’t bother me how many scientists and philosophers dispute such claims. Of course, what happened to me would be considered by sceptical scientists ‘merely anecdotes’ which are unrepeatable in a laboratory, which is of course true. Therein lies the problem.

In response to your second paragraph, you outline precisely what it might take to convince scientists. But therein lies another problem. You set conditions which are almost certainly impossible to fulfil, thereby creating a sort of vicious circle. The paranormal, almost by definition, does not, and does not need to conform to the normal rules of materialist science. People like Susan Blackmore deny ESP, precisely because (she says) there is no theory to explain it. This therefore allows her to dismiss the evidence. It would be better to accept the evidence, and then actually accept the challenge of coming up with a theory. But she can’t be bothered to do that, of course.

As an aside, ESP was good enough for the CIA and the American Military, who invested heavily in a remote viewing programme, which was apparently successful. So I would say, if it’s good enough for them, why isn’t it good enough for your scientists and philosophers?