Evidence for Psychic Powers

[Ali Quadir]

You've basically watered down the whole concept of 'peer' in scientific peer review.

The 9 experiments article is posted in the "Journal of personality and social psychology" a journal of psychology, not a journal of parapsychology. Which means the available peers are more likely psychologists than parapsychologists. If a well reputed journal can consider psychologists peers to parapsychologists... Then why can't I?

I've read over some of the criticisms and am still reading over the paper: 9 experiments. Let's talk. Which experiment do you think was explained adequately? We'll look at that one.

What do you mean with "explained adequately?" Surely not that the mechanism underlying the measurements is adequately explained?

Why don't you tell me what's wrong with them? The whole paper exists of 9 experiments. Judging the whole thing on one of them would not be right. Just as judging "Evidence of psychic powers" on one experiment alone is not really the proper thing to do.

Also pick one field in science that you consider model science, what you would call: "proper well done science" we may use it as a reference point so that we can compare parapsychology to it in areas of dispute...