James Randi Love Thread

[heliocentric]

heliocentric:



Not at the stage of proving existence.

If somebody says "I have ESP", then Randi says nothing more that "Show me." He isn't interested in why the person has ESP, or how it works, or the psychology of it. He just wants the person making the claim to do what they say they can do.

Its debatable,
extra sensory perception - perception being part of the psyche, which is what psychology is there to investigate.
Is the way id look at it.

I think you want to believe in ESP and so on. Randi is a barrier to that belief, because he directly challenges the existence of these mystical powers. So, you try to dismiss him as not worthy of your attention.

Its a shame you think that,
You honestly dont think its possible for someone to simply be agnostic on the subject and simply be calling for proper scientific methology?

First, Randi has not built his entire career as a supernatural naysayer. His career was as a professional conjuror.

Yep was

Second, Randi often has no direct participation in testing of claims for the $1 million prize.

Ive read reports to the contrary actually, i can probably dig out an old book and find the reference if needs be.

Third, the conditions for a fair test are agreed in advance by applicants for the prize. This is done so they can't turn around after the test and claim it was unfair. They agreed it was fair before they took the test. They negotiated the test conditions. They said they could do what they claimed under the agreed conditions.

The problem is its never going to be fair or scientifc when youve built a career out of saying all this stuff is complete guff.
There are numerous essays out there on the myriad of ways you can tip the data in favour of your bias, you can do it without even being aware youre doing it. Its a very well known phenomenon.
Its an continual problem within science that will probably never completely go away.
Now if we let someone who A. isnt a scientist, and B. has a vested interest in a clear outcome to spear head experiments and 'have a go' himself when he feels like it then to me there seems an incredibly slim chance that any remotely scientific will actually happen.

Many "parapsychologists" have been shown to have the very pre-experiment bias you're complaining about.

For sure its a problem that doesnt confine itself to any area of investigation and im certainly not saying it begins and ends with Randi.

Really all im calling for is that we set about collecting data in the most level-headed, unbiased way possible without creating a media circus around any sort of experiments that may be conducted.

Another point is that many of the people who assist Randi in conducting tests are scientists and/or psychologists with the "real" credentials you want. I guess you're saying they are all compromised too, by association. (?)

I think youd have to ask yourself serious questions about someone working for Randi to begin with to be honest, and as ive already stated he has real working input into the experiments presumably either when he has time or when he feels like it.

 

[Giambattista]

The thing about Rhandi is i dont think he really cares about progressing human understanding, i think hes purely and only concerned with anything he associates as 'supernatural' being proven wrong.

I've found him amusing now and again, but I think this is a pretty fair assessment of him that you have made. I think the same can be said of many fulltime skeptics/debunkers.

 

[shaman_]

I can understand if people find him arrogant or grating. That's fine. However if you had psychic powers and your biggest obstacle is proving to a short, 79 year old man who doesn't believe you .. then well big deal. His arrogance or close-minded attitude should be extra motivation to show off your powers.

Are we just focusing Randi's attitude and possible motivations to take attention away from the failures and attack the test again? Perhaps they are valid concerns.

Heliocentric, are you suggesting that Randi (or someone representing him) is causing people to fail the test? (perhaps unintentionally) How do you suspect that Randi is doing this? Many have been tested, I would expect one of them to have become suspicious. You know that the tests are designed so that there is no judging and the outcome is self evident. Randi isn't holding the testing materials in his hands or doing any of the scoring himself or anything like that.

I have read that Randi is often not even at the tests nowadays. He is certainly not at all of them and I know that he offers to be somewhere else if the applicant prefers it.

 

[MetaKron]

Yes.

Funny stuff. Randi must have heard some ridiculous excuses over the years.

Randi IS a ridiculous excuse.

 

[James R]

Good argument, MetaKron. I'm sure you'll convince many people with your incisive analysis.

 

[Satyr]

I despise Randi because he belittles and insults the premises I hold most dear and the perspectives that sooth my emotional handicaps.

For starters, I neeeed magic and the paranormal. How else could the 'normal' cease to be soo mundane and how else can I rescue some of my most precious beleifs from the jaws of reason?

 

[grover]

-The level of hypocrisy by you scientific fundamentalists is insane. There is tons of scientific research on psi phenomena, and "sceptics" bend over backwards to find "flaws" in the research often focusing on the presence of observer bias on the part of the person conducting the experiment. This is a valid concern since observer bias can completely ruin the results. Which is what is so astounding and hypocritical about your support of Randi. On the one hand you bend over backwards to find observer bias in legitimate scientific experiments while at the same time completely overlooking it when it supports your view. Just like all fundamentalists you are hypocrites.

-Furthermore, just do a thought experiment. Assume for a moment that psi does exist. If psi does exist then this would be an instance when observer bias would have to be even more carefully controlled since the observer could be not only influencing the results with their interpretations but also by their own psi. So, whose to say that Randi isn't really just demonstrating that his psi is stronger than anyone elses. Its all just a big joke. That is just a hypothetical to demonstrate the accepted scinetific importance of eliminating observer bias and why it is even more important when dealing with psi phenomenon.

-So, tell me sceptics, why are you so threatened by the possibility of psi that you completely abandon the scientific method when something comes along that supports your biases? (in this case that "something" being a stage magician named "The Amazing Randi").

 

[heliocentric]

Good post Grover, i think part of the problem is the corruption of the term skeptic.
Skepticism was originally about being skeptical about everything, every side of the equation, every argument, every theory, every hypothesis, every fact.
What passes for Skepticism these days is out-right refusal of anything you fancy as being abit too non-establishment for your tastes.
I say that because i actually browsed skeptic.com for every untested theory and hypothesis i could think of in modern science - didnt get one hit.

Which kind of suggests that they either feel science by its very nature is infallible or that we dont need to be skeptical when it comes to anything within science.
Either way its pretty damn odd, ive a feeling its all about some sort of self-invented status quo theyre fighting to protect which has ironically long long since shifted beyond their world view.
They still think science is about battling the mystics and the champions of superstition.
Which if anything should be the other way round, modern science is far more mystical than anything youd find on a newage ufology site these days.
I was reading about a proposed retro-causality experiment the other day, and the physicist mentioned something he called a 'coincidence detector'.
I mean thats as out there as pretty much anything in the world of crack-pottery where eccentric old men try to find the secrets of the universe in their garden shed.
Its all converging, which i think is slightly brilliant, but i really think alot of people dont like it.

 

[grover]

I agree with everything you said Helio. Very interesting.

-That thing about sceptics feeling that science is infallible and beyond question reminds me of how the church was regarded in the middle ages. It seems to me that they are both fundamentalisms which are born out of the same fear: uncertainty. You are correct that the term "sceptic" has been totally corrupted (in much the same way most Christian beliefs don't have very much in common with actual teachings of Christ) which is why I personally prefer the term "scientifc fundamentalist."

-I couldn't agree more about how out there physics has gotten. Nothing can be more out there than quantum physics (not that I claim to get it) but, when I hear that it is accepted in science that light is both a wave and a particle I know its time to be very careful about what is said to be possible or impossible.

 

[James R]

grover:

-The level of hypocrisy by you scientific fundamentalists is insane. There is tons of scientific research on psi phenomena, and "sceptics" bend over backwards to find "flaws" in the research often focusing on the presence of observer bias on the part of the person conducting the experiment. This is a valid concern since observer bias can completely ruin the results. Which is what is so astounding and hypocritical about your support of Randi. On the one hand you bend over backwards to find observer bias in legitimate scientific experiments while at the same time completely overlooking it when it supports your view. Just like all fundamentalists you are hypocrites.

Randi's tests are carefully designed to eliminate observer bias as much as possible.

So, whose to say that Randi isn't really just demonstrating that his psi is stronger than anyone elses.

You're not the first believer to suggest that.

The problem with that hypothesis is that Randi is often miles (even continents sometimes) away from the test taking place. He is not personally involved in many tests. Is his "psi" so strong that he can influence events all over the world, unconsciously?

-That thing about sceptics feeling that science is infallible and beyond question reminds me of how the church was regarded in the middle ages.

No skeptic believes that science is infallible. This is a straw man.

I couldn't agree more about how out there physics has gotten. Nothing can be more out there than quantum physics (not that I claim to get it) but, when I hear that it is accepted in science that light is both a wave and a particle I know its time to be very careful about what is said to be possible or impossible.

The difference between quantum physics and psychic powers is that quantum effects have been thoroughly tested and confirmed independently by many experimenters. There is 100 years of solid science behind quantum physics. The same cannot be said for any psychic ability.

 

[heliocentric]

I agree with everything you said Helio. Very interesting.

-That thing about sceptics feeling that science is infallible and beyond question reminds me of how the church was regarded in the middle ages. It seems to me that they are both fundamentalisms which are born out of the same fear: uncertainty. You are correct that the term "sceptic" has been totally corrupted (in much the same way most Christian beliefs don't have very much in common with actual teachings of Christ) which is why I personally prefer the term "scientifc fundamentalist."

Yup, in fact theres quite a number of psychologists/sociologists who believe that most humans are essentially predisposed to belief and dogma.
Theres really a huge casam between these types of people and the people 'out on the front line' so to speak.
Alot of the pioneers of quantum mechanics for instance have no problem entertaining the implications that quantum physics could have on the macro-scale. They also generally arnt bothered by the mystical implications of the quantum world - although funamentalists hate that because its rubs up sharply against their misconceptions of science, and doesnt serve their dogma machine.

By the same token most (if not all) physicists of note, will be happy to talk at length about how science is mearly an abstraction, a model of reality that may or may not be getting closer to the truth.
Einstein in fact was always at pains to educate people that you can never truly know reality purely through science.
''science is like understanding a concerto purely as changes in local air pressure, you can never engage and understand beauty by science alone"" (paraphrase).
Again these are things that fundamentalists really dont like, even if all their heroes tells them that science isnt the be all/end all religion they think it is, they'll still treat it as one.
Makes you wonder whos tune theyre actually dancing to. :shrug:

 

[grover]

James-
1. Its accepted by anyone that studies psi that physical distance doens't matter. (Obvious connection to quantum mechanics where events are non-local).
2. When I use the word sceptic what I mean is "Scientific Materialist Fundamentalist." ALL s.m.fs believe science is infallible and capable of answering ALL questions. The most well known smf is Dawkins. In his latest book his exact point was that science can answer all questions. This is in sharp to distinction to a scientist that doesn't hold dogmatic beliefs such as Gould who believed that science and religion were not coterminous.
3. There is over 100 years of solid research on psi phenomenon as well. Just becasue you pretend it doesn't exist does not mean it doesn't. I already covered this gorund demonstrating that there is solid scientific evidence fpr psi in the "empathy" thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=18938&highlight=empathy so read that pertinent sections of that before blurting out your dogmatic preconceived notion that there is no credible science supproting psi [also pay attention to the fact that the "criticism" of the science by "sceptics" is often discredited (which the sceptics never admit to after the fact)].
4. One other criticism have of "The Amazing Randi" is this. Even the most sceptical of the sceptical will at least admit this much is true - In real life and controlled scientific experiments it, at least SOMETIMES, APPEARS that psi phenomenon is occuring. That being the case - why when "The Amazing Randi" is involved does it NEVER appear that psi is occuring?

 

[shaman_]

I am reminded of the religious forum here. Due to the lack of evidence to focus then moves to attacking sceptics (or atheists) with straw man arguments (sceptics think science is infallible), false analogies (qm) and a few Einstein quotes thrown in for good measure.

Scepticism is a very important tool for weeding out the good ideas from the bad and most people will agree with that... until it is applied to a favorite subject of theirs. Then sceptics are then called psuedosceptics or fundamentalists for displaying scepticism..

Not the first time that I have heard the accusation of being threatened by the possibility of psi. I would love it if people had these abilities. The world would be more interesting. There is nothing I find threatening about it. If others had this power maybe I might too! I would just like to see some convincing evidence. The 'best' evidence I have seen so far has been from highly criticised studies. You can complain all you want that sceptics are finding flaws in the studies but it isn't their fault if the testing is flawed.

Is it asking to much for results to be replicated?

You can also complain that Randi's test isn't scientific but it is a controlled experiment. Why do these powers disappear in a controlled experiment?

Which brings me to Grover's thought experiment. What you have here is something that has yet to be demonstrated being blanketed or opposed by something else that has yet to be demonstrated. It sounds like a very convenient ad hoc hypothesis. Its like saying that I can fly but only when no one is watching. You would be sceptical towards my flying ability.

Sure it is possible though. As I said in my last discussion with Grover I think this is something that could be tested. I would certainly be interested to hear the results.

 

[grover]

Shaman,
-Please point out the straw man arguments, the false qm analogies, and what exactly is wrong with quoting a scientist to support ones hypothesis.
-You completely missed the point of my thought experiment. The point was simply to demonstrated how much more important it is to eliminate observer bias when perfoming experiments on psi.
-I thoroughly demonstrated in the empathy thread that there is credible scientific evidence for psi. Here is why psi studies are considered "highly criticized" by sceptics- it's because sceptics criticise the studies and then say "see, these studies are highly criticised." It's exactly like if you wrote a book and listed your self as the primary source in the footnotes!
-As far as you taking an open-minded, balanced, and truly sceptical look at both sides of the argument I didn't see you do it. I just heard you say "I don't believe it." Just like Christians don't believe in evolution. You are not being called a fundametalist because you are being sceptical, you are being called a fundamenatlist for dogmatically adhering to beliefs and refusing to acknowledge credible sciene that supports the reality of a phenomenon you do not want to believe in.

 

[shaman_]

Stop editing your post!!! I have changed my reply twice now.
:spank:

Shaman,
-Please point out the straw man arguments,

"sceptics feeling that science is infallible and beyond question "

the false qm analogies,

"Nothing can be more out there than quantum physics (not that I claim to get it) but, when I hear that it is accepted in science that light is both a wave and a particle I know its time to be very careful about what is said to be possible or impossible." Was this not intended to draw some sort of parallel?

and what exactly is wrong with quoting a scientist to support ones hypothesis.

My point was that I have seen too many believers and religious people cherry pick Einstein quotes to support whatever they believe in. If we are discussing a relevant area of physics then that is fine.

-You completely missed the point of my thought experiment. The point was simply to demonstrated how much more important it is to eliminate observer bias when perfoming experiments on psi.

No I didn't, in fact we have already been though this before. Do you see my point regarding the convenient ad hoc hypothesis?

Instead of just using it as an excuse, perhaps you could suggest a way to eliminate this observer bias.?

-
-I thoroughly demonstrated in the empathy thread that there is credible scientific evidence for psi.

No you posted some links and I posted some links that criticised your links.

-Here is why psi studies are considered "highly criticized" by sceptics- it's because sceptics criticise the studies and then say "see, these studies are highly criticised." It's exactly like if you wrote a book and listed your self as the primary source in the footnotes!

Perhaps you need to look at why these studies are criticised. Do you just reject the criticism?

-As far as you taking an open-minded, balanced, and truly sceptical look at both sides of the argument I didn't see you do it. I just heard you say "I don't believe it." Just like Christians don't believe in evolution.

Terrible analogy. You used it in the last thread as well. I will just repeat my previous response. "Are you actually comparing the evidence for evolution to the evidence for psi? Come on Grover. Not only is evolution confirmed by an enormous amount of evidence, it is confirmed by evidence from different fields of science. Your evidence for psi relies on results that can’t be repeated, tests with questionable controls and the use of dubious meta-analysis.

I am not saying that all these results are worthless but do not compare it to evolution."

Evolution has stood up to more scepticism and attacks that psi has and it is still there. Why? Evidence. If psi had anything like the evidence for evolution behind it we would not be having this discussion.

You are not being called a fundametalist because you are being sceptical, you are being called a fundamenatlist for dogmatically adhering to beliefs and refusing to acknowledge credible sciene that supports the reality of a phenomenon you do not want to believe in.

I do want to believe in the phenomenom, more than you realise. I have used the net name 'shaman' for many years now because I was into everything as a teenager. We can argue about sceptics all you want but at the moment the evidence for psi is simply not good enough.

 

[grover]

Christian Fundamentalists
-Faith-based belief that Bible is word of God and therefore evolution is impossible
-Dismiss out of hand the science that suggests evolution is real
-Hypocritical (think it is ok to Kill though Bible/Christ unambiguously state it is not. Paradoxically use Christianity as a tool for killing i.e, "god on our side," blowing up abortion clinics, slaughter of non-converts for their "own good.")

Scientific Fundamentalists
-Faith-based belief that only matter exists and therfore psi is impossible
-Dismiss out of hand science that suggests psi is real
-Hypocritical (claim to believe scientific method is crucial to use for determining the truth, but abandon scientific method for a magician if they believe it supports their ideology. Paradoxically abandon open-minded scepticism which questions all things equally and instead employ the term "scepticism" to mean rigid disbelief of that which does not fit in with their worldview).

 

[grover]

Shaman,
1. You'll have to explain to me how thats a straw man, i have made qm analogies but you have yet to demonstrate how they are false, I don't personally see the problem of quoting Einstein but if you think it's an issue I promise never to mention him again.
2. Are you honestly saying that in the empathy forum I presented no credilbe science for psi? Guess what, all scientific studies can and are criticised, its actually part of the scientific process, that something has been criticised proves nothing.
3. You say Evolution has stood up to more attacks than psi. You don't get it, there are still tons of Christians out there that do not believe in evolution (this fact is probably more obvious to an American than an Australian because there are more religous nutjobs here than there and hearing about evolution being dismissed is a daily occurence here). The analogy is pointing out that fundamentalists can find a way to dismiss science they don't agree with. CHristian fundamentalists dismiss science supporting evolution. Scientific fundamentalists dismiss science supprorting psi. Sorry but its not a terrible analogy. No matter how much evidence you present for something a fundamentalist will reject it and be completely oblivious to the fact that their rejection is totally irrational. Evolution is every bit as contested as psi!
-Go back through the empathy post if you want. I do go through the criticisms raised and explain why much (not all) of it has been discredited. This is a fact that the sceptics won't fess up to. They make alot of noise criticising the studies and then never bring up the fact that their criticisms have been discredited. This creates the illusion that the science has been thoroughly discredited. All the scientific fundamentalists are doing is yelling really loud. If you're saying there are no credible scientific experiments for psi that is plain and simply not true. If your saying that the criticisms are always valid that's not true.

 

[heliocentric]

I am reminded of the religious forum here. Due to the lack of evidence to focus then moves to attacking sceptics (or atheists) with straw man arguments (sceptics think science is infallible), false analogies (qm) and a few Einstein quotes thrown in for good measure.

The point i was making, which granted is getting alittle off topic, is the way in which skepticism now opperates.
My intention isnt to strawman any party here, i genuinely dont know why skeptic sites can only stretch themselves to be skeptical about homeopathy and crop circles.
I offered up a few suggestions as to why i think this may be the case, but id be interested to know what other people think.

The central point for me at least, remains that skepticism should be applied in all instances or where ever possible.
The goal for me here isnt to debunk the debunkers and somehow have anything psi be true by default.

Scepticism is a very important tool for weeding out the good ideas from the bad and most people will agree with that... until it is applied to a favorite subject of theirs. Then sceptics are then called psuedosceptics or fundamentalists for displaying scepticism..

No its the other way round, im not having a pop at rhandi because hes too skeptical, rather he isnt skeptical enough/isnt in a position to be truly skeptical.
If this was any other area of science we just wouldnt be having this discussion. If Rhandi's methods were sound, then surely all experiments would work on the same basis - im a debunker with a wad of cash, prove that youre not all frauds geologists/biologists/physicists.
The point im making is whether its psi or any other phenomenon id be here just the same calling him out because his methodology is bunk.
The topic is irrelevant, its the method thats the issue here.

 

[James R]

grover:

1. Its accepted by anyone that studies psi that physical distance doens't matter. (Obvious connection to quantum mechanics where events are non-local).

So, James Randi, who doesn't believe in psychic powers, is in fact the most powerful psychic in the world, able to influence all scientific tests of psychic ability to fail, even over intercontinental distances, without even trying. While the combined forces of all the psychic believers can't overcome his Amazing powers?

2. When I use the word sceptic what I mean is "Scientific Materialist Fundamentalist." ALL s.m.fs believe science is infallible and capable of answering ALL questions. The most well known smf is Dawkins. In his latest book his exact point was that science can answer all questions.

Do you mean The God Delusion? Have you read it?

If so, can you provide a page reference to where he says science can answer all questions? I'll check it against the copy I have on my shelf.

3. There is over 100 years of solid research on psi phenomenon as well. Just becasue you pretend it doesn't exist does not mean it doesn't.

I know something about this "research". A lot of it has been badly controlled or subject to experimenter bias. Many investigations haven't even done the basics, such as double-blind testing. Some researchers have been fooled by deliberate fraudsters. Of the research that's left after you eliminate the badly conducted stuff, any positive effects have always been on the threshold of the sensitivity of the experiment in question, or small statistical anomalies.

4. One other criticism have of "The Amazing Randi" is this. Even the most sceptical of the sceptical will at least admit this much is true - In real life and controlled scientific experiments it, at least SOMETIMES, APPEARS that psi phenomenon is occuring. That being the case - why when "The Amazing Randi" is involved does it NEVER appear that psi is occuring?

Randi's tests have quite rigorous controls. He and his team are expert in designing rigorous studies of these types of things. He himself admits to being up with the usual fraudulent techniques - that is the magician's expertise, after all. Even then, it has been argued by some (after the fact) that some of his results have been unusual. Such results cannot, however, be said to be outside the expected statistical fluctuations one would expect (and Randi makes sure are analysed rigorously prior to the tests).

Scientific Fundamentalists
-Faith-based belief that only matter exists and therfore psi is impossible
-Dismiss out of hand science that suggests psi is real
-Hypocritical (claim to believe scientific method is crucial to use for determining the truth, but abandon scientific method for a magician if they believe it supports their ideology. Paradoxically abandon open-minded scepticism which questions all things equally and instead employ the term "scepticism" to mean rigid disbelief of that which does not fit in with their worldview).

Even if there are some "scientific fundamentalists" of the type you mention here, it is unfair to lump ALL scientists into that category.

3. You say Evolution has stood up to more attacks than psi. You don't get it, there are still tons of Christians out there that do not believe in evolution (this fact is probably more obvious to an American than an Australian because there are more religous nutjobs here than there and hearing about evolution being dismissed is a daily occurence here). The analogy is pointing out that fundamentalists can find a way to dismiss science they don't agree with.

Sure. Anybody can ignore evidence that doesn't suit their prior beliefs. But that's just sticking their head in the sand. No educated person takes those kinds of people seriously.

 

[shaman_]

Shaman,
1. You'll have to explain to me how thats a straw man,

Sceptics don't think that science is infallible.

i have made qm analogies but you have yet to demonstrate how they are false,

Quantum physics has over a century of reliable, empirical evidence to support it. Two teams doing the same experiment on opposite parts of the globe can make predictions of the results and both will receive the those same results. Can you do this with psi? No the evidence for psi relies on studies with questionable testing protocols and results that can't be replicated. Just like evolution, the two cannot be compared.

I don't personally see the problem of quoting Einstein but if you think it's an issue I promise never to mention him again.

My original comment was just an observation. I was being a little facetious anyway.

2. Are you honestly saying that in the empathy forum I presented no credilbe science for psi? Guess what, all scientific studies can and are criticised, its actually part of the scientific process, that something has been criticised proves nothing.

You presented evidence that shows something. As I said in that thread, there may be something there or experimenter bias could explain the very minor and unreliable effect noted. I am not discarding the evidence but I don't think it confirms the existence of psi.

3. You say Evolution has stood up to more attacks than psi. You don't get it, there are still tons of Christians out there that do not believe in evolution (this fact is probably more obvious to an American than an Australian because there are more religous nutjobs here than there and hearing about evolution being dismissed is a daily occurence here). The analogy is pointing out that fundamentalists can find a way to dismiss science they don't agree with. CHristian fundamentalists dismiss science supporting evolution. Scientific fundamentalists dismiss science supprorting psi. Sorry but its not a terrible analogy. No matter how much evidence you present for something a fundamentalist will reject it and be completely oblivious to the fact that their rejection is totally irrational. Evolution is every bit as contested as psi!

No I do "get it". Your analogy would be fine if the evidence for psi were comparable to the evidence for evolution. Have you read about the evidence supporting evolution? Do you really think that it is comparable? Do you understand why I think that it isn't? This is not a blind, dogmatic dismissal. I have read the best evidence for psi that I can find(no I haven't read Conscious Universe yet) and it cannot be compared to the abundant, reliable evidence for evolution.

The problem here is that todays scientists are not rejecting the evidence for psi because they are threatened by it, it is rejected because it is simply not good enough. There is no need to believe that this evidence is more than poor test controls or experimenter bias. This has been fairly confidently eliminated from the other accepted fields of science.

-Go back through the empathy post if you want. I do go through the criticisms raised and explain why much (not all) of it has been discredited.

No you posted a rebuttal to a different article than the one I posted a link to. I'm sure you are not going to instantly dismiss any criticism that you don't like because that would be a little hypocritical. Hrm.

This is a fact that the sceptics won't fess up to.

That is a terrible generalisation, particularly considering you are mistaken in this case. I am not arrogant enough to accuse all believers of being gullible or stupid so please refrain from making these generalisations.

They make alot of noise criticising the studies and then never bring up the fact that their criticisms have been discredited. This creates the illusion that the science has been thoroughly discredited. All the scientific fundamentalists are doing is yelling really loud. If you're saying there are no credible scientific experiments for psi that is plain and simply not true. If your saying that the criticisms are always valid that's not true.

I am not saying that every criticism is true. Please don't put words in my mouth. There may have been 'credible' experiments done but I am saying that the evidence so far does not confirm the existence of psi.