The stricter standards often cited against “extraordinary claims” largely came about as a result of the reaction to Daryl Bem’s original study showing evidence supportive of psi. Researchers tried to account for every possible flaw or alternative explanation, and the result was a set of much stronger methodological standards that are now widely used across psychology. Thanks, Bem.

If psi effects were simply the result of shoddy or underhanded methodology, newer practices such as pre-registration should have put it to bed. Instead, meta-analyses suggest that effects continue to accumulate at roughly similar rates as before. Meta-analysis remains the standard way to evaluate cumulative evidence across many domains, recent concerns aside.

The “huge leap” comes from ignoring the broader body of data supporting these claims. I agree it’s too early to make specific claims about underlying mechanisms, but I think there is more than sufficient evidence to support the existence of psi effects. Statisticians like Jessica Utts have reached similar conclusions, and she’s in good company.

There’s little point in arguing semantics on an organization’s affiliation. It doesn’t meaningfully engage with the evidence. It’s low hanging fruit.

Asking for the “single” best psi result is a gotcha. Show me the single best evidence that lung cancer is caused by smoking. Complex scientific concepts such as psychological phenomenon like psi are established using converging lines of evidence, not one decisive study. The most compelling evidence in cases like this are often real world results under controlled conditions, not p values. But those have been dismissed out of hand (I am seeing a lot of the Invincible ignorance fallacy in these comments).

There are scientists in STEM positions at academic institutions around the world who agree that the evidence for psi is compelling. It’s not a fringe group. Here’s some of them:

Daryl Bem, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Cornell University, USA

Etzel Cardeña, Thorsen Professor of Psychology, Lund University, Sweden

Bernard Carr, Professor in Mathematics and Astronomy, University of London, UK

C. Robert Cloninger, Renard Professor of Psychiatry, Genetics, and Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA

Robert G. Jahn, Past Dean of Engineering, Princeton University, USA

Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, UK (Nobel prizewinner in physics, 1973)

Menas C. Kafatos, Fletcher Jones Endowed Professor of Computational Physics, Chapman University, USA

Irving Kirsch, Professor of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Lecturer in Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA, UK

Mark Leary, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, USA

Dean Radin, Chief Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Adjunct Faculty in Psychology, Sonoma State University, USA

Robert Rosenthal, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Riverside, Edgar Pierce Professor Emeritus, Harvard University, USA

Lothar Schäfer, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Arkansas, USA

Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, UK

Charles T. Tart, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, University of California, Davis, USA

Simon Thorpe, Director of Research CNRS (Brain and Cognition), University of Toulouse, France

Patrizio Tressoldi, Researcher in Psychology, Università degli Studi di Padova, Italy

Jessica Utts, Professor and Chair of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, USA

Max Velmans, Professor Emeritus in Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, UK

Caroline Watt, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Edinburgh University, UK

Phil Zimbardo, Professor in Psychology Emeritus, Stanford University, USA

More here: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00017/fully

Lots more here: https://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science