The criticism that there is no reliably reproducible demonstration of psi

I'm skeptical of the claim that the fiber optic cable was installed backward.
I'm also skeptical of the claim that that photons have no mass but are "curved" by gravity.
But I'm even more skeptical that extraordinary evidence would offer any illumination on either subject.

There's no special form of science for extraordinary claims. What it means  though is when such a claim is made extra care needs to be taken to make certain the result demonstrates the claim and not something else  entirely or even sloppy research. Was it to you I suggested to look up faster than light neutrinos?

So when proving "regular science" stuff need not take that special care? Oh now I see....

It's kinda like where some argue for the death penalty in cases where the person is "definitely guilty". You know, like when several people absolutely saw the person do it. The light was excellent. The witness of the highest caliber, like a judge or a movie star or something. And definitely the witness wasn't drinking or anything.

In those particular special cases where we REALLY know the bad guy did it, they should be subject to the death penalty.

For all the other cases where we are less sure, we should just give them life in prison. Like that right?

Beware of double standards. They are fraught with danger.

I wonder how far one can take the whole extraordinary claims gambit? Suppose someone was skeptical of your cognitive abilities, could you provide extraordinary evidence, To the contrary?

There's no special form of science for extraordinary claims. What it means  though is when such a claim is made extra care needs to be taken to make certain the result demonstrates the claim and not something else  entirely or even sloppy research. Was it to you I suggested to look up faster than light neutrinos?

It just happened that a team of scientists found a result at odds with well established physics. Nothing really out of the norm, it happens every other day and that's why peer-review and replication exist within the method. As soon as the original experimental setup was reviewed errors were immediately found and a replication attempt failed, providing results consistent with the known speed of light.

So, in the end, the "extra care" is not extra at all. It's just the ordinary need for replication which is already part of the scientific process.

Cheers

I wonder how far one can take the whole extraordinary  claims gambit? Suppose someone was skeptical  of your cognitive  abilities, could you provide extraordinary evidence, To the contrary?

A cognitive assessment, such as an IQ test?

So when proving "regular science" stuff need not take that special care? Oh now I see....

It's kinda like where some argue for the death penalty in cases where the person is "definitely guilty". You know, like when several people absolutely saw the person do it. The light was excellent. The witness of the highest caliber, like a judge or a movie star or something. And definitely the witness wasn't drinking or anything.

In those particular special cases where we REALLY know the bad guy did it, they should be subject to the death penalty.

For all the other cases where we are less sure, we should just give them life in prison. Like that right?

Beware of double standards. They are fraught with danger.

No, it's there would be fewer other causes to eliminate. Did you look up faster than light neutrons?

I'm skeptical  of the claim  that the fiber optic cable was installed backward.
I'm also skeptical  of the claim that that photons have no mass but are "curved" by gravity.
But I'm even more skeptical  that extraordinary  evidence would offer any illumination  on either subject.

Did you check the fiber cable?
Gravity does not curve photons. It curves spacetime. You can always test for yourself the speed of a photon not traveling through a medium.

No, it's there would be fewer other causes to eliminate. Did you look up faster than light neutrons?

Fewer causes? What exactly are you talking about?

Do you mean alternative causes that can lead to a particular test result?

So its not about "extraordinary claims", it's about possible number of causes of a particular result? 

Isn't there a process in the scientific method to eliminate any and all other causes? Even in "regular" (vs extraordinary) scientific situations? 

What makes these situations special?

Umm no. Researching neutrons is not on the upper half of my task list for today.

It just happened that a team of scientists found a result at odds with well established physics. Nothing really out of the norm, it happens every other day and that's why peer-review and replication exist within the method. As soon as the original experimental setup was reviewed errors were immediately found and a replication attempt failed, providing results consistent with the known speed of light.

So, in the end, the "extra care" is not extra at all. It's just the ordinary need for replication which is already part of the scientific process.

Cheers

Maybe I'll try a different tack.

Steve001 said this- What it means  though is when such a claim ,,,,

What does he mean by "such a claim"? 

Does this mean, a claim that he personally doesn't agree with? If not him, then who is the arbiter of such a thing? Seems to me, this little tweak in the scientific method is what the Amazing Randi used (uses? is he still doing that tired thing of his? pretending to offer money in exchange for proof of psi?). 

It is just a coincidence that I only hear this demand for a special, greater level of proof from people who are pushing back against something that doesn't conform to their notion of how things work? Or is that just my imagination running wild on me?