How important is it to convince the scientific community that psi exists?

I didn't want to vote because of  the lack of qualifiers. In some senses, all three options are valid.

1. Yes, very important to have the evidence recognised if it might lead to a paradigm change. Though, see (3) as to why this is unlikely.

2. Quite important for those working in research but perhaps not essential to their work.

3. Not really important if research confirms what we already know. Many in the scientific community are ideologically rigid and will never accept any evidence anyway.

In a way, this highlights my dislike of polls and, by extension, of statistics. At the last census, I answered the question about religion. From memory, it gave me a selection of various accepted religions, "other" religions and the option "No Religion". I have no religion, am not religious so I selected No Religion. Predictably, the British Humanists and other atheist groups were crowing about the results claiming those of "No Religion", like myself, into their camp. I am not in their camp nor do I wish to be associated with their views which are, according to this BBC summary:

Humanist ideas

Most humanists would agree with the ideas below:

• There are no supernatural beings.
  
• The material universe is the only thing that exists.
  
• Science provides the only reliable source of knowledge about this universe.
  
• We only live this life - there is no after-life, and no such thing as reincarnation.
  
• Human beings can live ethical and fulfilling lives without religious beliefs.
  
• Human beings derive their moral code from the lessons of history, personal experience, and thought.

I voted "quite important" since psi, if it exists, appears to be quite small and for a lot of science its effect would be simply buried in the noise of random fluctuations.

However, it's more important inasmuch as the lessons of parapsychology could help other sciences improve their methodologies and reporting. Recently, while trying to search for stuff about Turing I stumbled upon a paper in the JSPR discussing the benefits and pitfalls of Bayesian statistics from the 1960s. This seems awfully ahead of its time to me.

And then today, via the SPR facebook feed, there was this:

http://www.sciepub.com/AJAP/abstract/7418

An interesting paper about psi which addresses this idea. (I think it's machine translated by the way, so the English isn't spot on, but you'll get the jist).

I've always thought that macro pk effects would be a great place to start, since, if you believe many of the PK proponents (SandyB from the old forum comes to mind as one), there are numerous macro pk practitioners who can move all sorts of things but simply won't allow themselves to be tested because of some perceived notion that the skeptical scientists would treat them unfairly.

I've always found this to be less than satisfying as a rationale for why there are not any public displays of macro pk under controlled conditions. Surely there must be at least one talented macro pk practitioner who would love nothing more than to shut up the skeptical orthodoxy once and for all and shine a favorable light on their talent. So why have none come forward to simply display this talent that they have in public and under controlled conditions? Why are the examples all on youtube? 

Again, I understand why many might be put off by the treatment they might receive from skeptical scientists, but why isn't there even one who just says, "I'm going to show the world once and for all that this is a real talent and it can be publicly displayed with tight controls in place!" Makes you wonder...

Surely there must be at least one talented macro pk practitioner who would love nothing more than to shut up the skeptical orthodoxy once and for all and shine a favorable light on their talent. 

What makes you think such a demonstration would shut anyone up "once and for all"? Don't you think such a person would come under immense personal scrutiny, every aspect of their life would be laid before the public gaze. And they would be asked to perform again and again.... and after all that, it would just go into the records as one more mystery to add to the endless list of mysteries. And sceptics would continue to declare, "there is no evidence whatsoever", just as they've always done.

And sceptics would continue to declare, "there is no evidence whatsoever", just as they've always done.

Why do you think that, though?

Why do you think that, though?

How many "once and for all" demonstrations have there already been? Do you remember any of them?

How many "once and for all" demonstrations have there already been? Do you remember any of them?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

What makes you think such a demonstration would shut anyone up "once and for all"? Don't you think such a person would come under immense personal scrutiny, every aspect of their life would be laid before the public gaze. And they would be asked to perform again and again.... and after all that, it would just go into the records as one more mystery to add to the endless list of mysteries. And sceptics would continue to declare, "there is no evidence whatsoever", just as they've always done.

I think the person would become famous, yes, and as such would come under scrutiny like other famous people, but I think that many of the practitioners on youtube are perfectly fine with fame, so I don't think that's necessarily a problem. As for the orthodoxy, I think they cling to what they can cling to, but repeated public displays with controls set by leading skeptics would make the handholds increasingly difficult to grasp and I have no doubt that many of the leading skeptical scientists would have to admit that macro pk was a real thing. The beauty of macro PK is that if you can do it, the controls should be easy enough to set up, and the display should be straightforward. No need for meta analysis, or statistical artifacts or file drawers. The skeptics set the parameters, the practitioner moves the object. Now tell me again why there isn't even one practitioner who wants to make this happen, regardless of whether or not the skpetics would immediately flock to him/her and declare macro pk a real thing?

I think the person would become famous, yes, and as such would come under scrutiny like other famous people, but I think that many of the practitioners on youtube are perfectly fine with fame, so I don't think that's necessarily a problem. As for the orthodoxy, I think they cling to what they can cling to, but repeated public displays with controls set by leading skeptics would make the handholds increasingly difficult to grasp and I have no doubt that many of the leading skeptical scientists would have to admit that macro pk was a real thing. The beauty of macro PK is that if you can do it, the controls should be easy enough to set up, and the display should be straightforward. No need for meta analysis, or statistical artifacts or file drawers. The skeptics set the parameters, the practitioner moves the object. Now tell me again why there isn't even one practitioner who wants to make this happen, regardless of whether or not the skpetics would immediately flock to him/her and declare macro pk a real thing?

I've said the same thing more than once.

What makes you think such a demonstration would shut anyone up "once and for all"? Don't you think such a person would come under immense personal scrutiny, every aspect of their life would be laid before the public gaze. And they would be asked to perform again and again.... and after all that, it would just go into the records as one more mystery to add to the endless list of mysteries. And sceptics would continue to declare, "there is no evidence whatsoever", just as they've always done.

If I had such ability I would not hesitate to demonstrate it repeatedly with enthusiasm. Who knows where this would lead us in knowledge  about this universe. Berkelon is right.