A conventional explanation for the sense of being stared at? Or not.

I still disagree about the odds, since I'd want to know if people running the trials were pseudoskeptics or genuinely looking the truth. Also very curious as to Bem's final word - did he feel that the replications were fair or a hit job done by those who'd prefer parapsychology to be completely discredited based on their materialist faith.

That said, if we're also including studies used by the materialist faith in the critique I would agree that Sheldrake should seek to properly replicate his results as a matter of fairness.

This is what they did in the aforementioned study:

The study protocol was first developed by the lead authors, then the protocol was amended through a consensus design process. During this process, researchers involved in the discussion and replication of the original study were systematically identified and invited to participate in the study design. The panel of this consensus design process included 29 experts (15 proponents and 14 opponents of the ESP interpretation of the original results). After two rounds of review, the panel reached consensus according to pre-specified criteria, agreeing that the protocol has a high methodological quality and is secure against questionable research practices. The details of the consensus design process are described in the ‘Consensus Design Process' section of the Supplement.

Can you explain how pseudoskeptics acting in bad faith derailed this study?

This is what they did in the aforementioned study:


Can you explain how pseudoskeptics acting in bad faith derailed this study?

It seems very easy for people to enroll students in a Psi study while telling them that Psi is impossible and the study's only point is to disprove it. This can then effect the results.

However it's possible the corrections are completely fair and should be accepted, why I was curious what Bem's final word on the matter was.

It seems very easy for people to enroll students in a Psi study while telling them that Psi is impossible and the study's only point is to disprove it. This can then effect the results.

The “Feeling the Future" experiments, did not directly aim to correct for the subjective beliefs of participants about their own paranormal abilities through statistical methods. Instead, Bem's studies primarily focused on testing the existence of psi phenomena (like precognition and premonition) under controlled experimental conditions. How would one ever control for the degree a trial partipant thinks he has paranormal capabilities? I of course understand the desire to ever move the goal post here.

The “Feeling the Future" experiments, did not directly aim to correct for the subjective beliefs of participants about their own paranormal abilities through statistical methods. Instead, Bem's studies primarily focused on testing the existence of psi phenomena (like precognition and premonition) under controlled experimental conditions. How would one ever control for the degree a trial partipant thinks he has paranormal capabilities? I of course understand the desire to ever move the goal post here.

I don't even believe in retrocausation - something I've said since the Skeptiko Forum days - so I am not how I can be accused of trying to move the goal posts for a phenomenon I think is logically impossible.

I do accept something of interest may have been found while also noting the biases and corruption in science-as-practiced - especially when religious belief like that of the materialist faithful is at play. Why I was curious if Bem had any commentary on the supposed debunking of his work.

I don't even believe in retrocausation - something I've said since the Skeptiko Forum days - so I am not how I can be accused of trying to move the goal posts for a phenomenon I think is logically impossible.

I do accept something of interest may have been found while also noting the biases and corruption in science-as-practiced - especially when religious belief like that of the materialist faithful is at play. Why I was curious if Bem had any commentary on the supposed debunking of his work.

I’m not aware of any commentary from Bem. But I do acknowledge that you have a point about negative expectations being able to influence the outcome of certain studies. I was too dismissive in my previous post and I hope researchers in parapscychology (can’t spell this word right) will continue their experiments.

I’m not aware of any commentary from Bem. But I do acknowledge that you have a point about negative expectations being able to influence the outcome of certain studies. I was too dismissive in my previous post and I hope researcheres in parapscychology (can’t spell this word right) will continue their experiments.

I do want to acknowledge that I agree proponents cannot simply insist the original Bem et al studies were right because they are in favor of Psi existing. Horowitz wrote in 2022 that he felt Bem's work had held up to scrutiny, but I don't know his thoughts on the 2023 Royal Society work.

I also don't think all research work is legitimate - for example I'm not convinced Bengson's healing methods are teachable even if he and a few others have the ability to psychically heal people...the latter being claims I also came to doubt after reading his book...