It's ridiculous that such an article could get published in the first place, though it seems the magazine is "new-age". They admit that all the evidence doesn'

It's ridiculous that such an article could get published in the first place, though it seems the magazine is "new-age". They admit that all the evidence doesn't support the point they are arguing for: "But the long history of parapsychology lab research, going back far before Bem to Rhine’s ESP work in the 1930s, shows that when you bring psi into the lab, it tends to become more of a systematic statistical biasing factor than a source of individual mind-blowing “miracle events.”" - in other words "Evidence of PSI is indistinguishable from stochastic noise". "The chief bugaboo of scientific psi research has been replicability. It has proved frustratingly difficult to precisely replicate the results of many psi experiments." - In other words, the studies rely on chance events to get results in the first place. "Perhaps the experiments ... will finally resolve this problem and provide robustly replicable experiments demonstrating psi phenomena. I certainly hope so." - And the author is biased. How is this worth discussing?