I may try to win the $250,000 prize by demonstrating a paranormal ability

I can’t even track the logic. Two studies, doesnt seem like enough to make a conclusion. Not with those odds.

BTW the CFIIG is now half a million dollars.

I am not talking about only 2 studies. Bem’s 2015 replication paper was based on about 90 studies. I’m not attempting to do an exhaustive list of studies here, that would be a waste of time with this audience. I was just pointing out how in this well-documented case, the replications were significant, and the skeptical paper urging retraction was based on lies by omission…

Not sure how to respond to this. If there is a scientific consensus, that can be shown, I hope I would be open to that evidence. If it can’t be shown, then this a confirmation of a bias. At this point, I don’t think you’ve shown what would be “wasted”.

I’ve read some things about how to evaluate an expert opinion when experts disagree, and it’s not your field where your an expert. It’s not simple. I’ll try to find one.

Here’s a quote in conclusion

" It is less common that both sides will continue to claim the facts are different from what the other side claims, but even when that happens, it reduces again to a problem in simple logic: examine on what basis one side claims the facts are X and on what basis the other side claims the facts are ~X . At some point you will be able to identify one side or the other is arriving at that claim through invalid logic–or else you will be able to personally verify one side or the other is incorrect (e.g. if a weatherman says it is raining outside and you can directly observe yourself that it is not). Thus actual expertise is not needed to vet the relative reliability of experts. Except expertise in reasoning, which everyone should endeavor to have.,"

Of this