I have a hard time seeing how this could raise your probability assessment for psi, if you had any prior experience with psi research.
One pretty reliable takeaway from psi research: if you employ flimsy research protocols, positive results are a dime a dozen.
Positive results in tests much more stringent than this are already common. The fact that the phenomena are generally not accepted in the wider scientific community is due to the facts that a) no remotely plausible mechanisms are known, so the prior probability is low (this is not an unfair bias, it’s something we all need to account for,) and b) the “much more stringent than this” tests are still generally unacceptably sloppy by the standards of other fields, or simply fail to replicate.
I have a hard time seeing how this could raise your probability assessment for psi, if you had any prior experience with psi research.
One pretty reliable takeaway from psi research: if you employ flimsy research protocols, positive results are a dime a dozen.
Positive results in tests much more stringent than this are already common. The fact that the phenomena are generally not accepted in the wider scientific community is due to the facts that a) no remotely plausible mechanisms are known, so the prior probability is low (this is not an unfair bias, it’s something we all need to account for,) and b) the “much more stringent than this” tests are still generally unacceptably sloppy by the standards of other fields, or simply fail to replicate.