So psychic ability only works if there isn't an objective observer watching? Bit of a coincidence, surely?
that isn't what I mean at all. Wrong picture.
If (if) there is anything in it in for example fackinall's abilities beyond cold reading, then just maybe it works by person-to-person contact. We don't know the mechanisms of kangeroo care, except that the person-to-person physical contact seems to be a powerful force. Kangeroo care is much more easily recorded because it happens much more often than any real psychic ability. If it was as rare as any true psychic ability must be then it might be as hard to measure its influence.
lipsync agreed, 99.9999% of 'psychic' ability is not real. I'm just not sure if that 0.0001% is or not - as said, everything tested so far indicates most is not real. But does that exclude the possibility that a tiny fraction of 'ability' is real?
one of the problems with testing things like ondansetron in preg women is that it's so difficult due to the practicalities. You can't do double blind tests. You can't put them in a lab for long and individual circumstances and responses vary so much. That's the point I'm trying to make.
The other point is that have any reasonably well administered longitudinal studies been done? I havent heard of any (not that I've really looked). But things have to be measured in the appropriate way for them, and that seems more like it'll get an accurate result than anything else. Until that sort of case study has been ruled out, I'm not sure that claims that it objectively doesn't exist can be any more reliable than claims that it does ... at the far end of the bell curve at least.
Anyway not sure I have anythign more to add. Happy discussing =)