> Usually, thinking about these issues yields some apparent cause of error that would explain the unexpected results without violating one's basic beliefs. Unfo

> Usually, thinking about these issues yields some apparent cause of error that would explain the unexpected results without violating one's basic beliefs. Unfortunately, an apparent reason for disbelief can often be found even if the results truly are impeccable. Often, the result is that doubters continue their disbelief, and the believers continue believing, until one faction or the other retires from the field and the other belief becomes "consensus". This is a wonderfully succinct statement of the problem. It's not that no one can find a weakness in Bem's work, it's that no one can find a principled weakness, something that invalidates his result without invalidating more respectable results at the same time. For scientists, this is an important guide to improving research practices. For the rest of us, it's largely a warning to continue relying on base rates, and not update too strongly even in the face of solid-looking results. With every failed replication, that's going to get even worse.