Apologies for going off topic, but I just read the articles on debunking the MMR <-> autism link. I misread your open paragraph to be: "It's important to note

Apologies for going off topic, but I just read the articles on debunking the MMR <-> autism link. I misread your open paragraph to be: "It's important to note that (as far as I can tell) the author doesn't actually debunk the existence of precognition, only the claim that studies show precognition to exist." Yes, but quite vacuous. The author can't prove the non-existence of evidence supporting the 10x claim. He was critiquing our folklor-ish belief in this 10x claim, without evidence, and our gross indifference to this fact. Let my try another tack, proposing: excluding some bottom <10% that are incompetent, and those with less than 5 years of experience, all programmers have exactly the same 1x productivity capability; all apparent levels of difference are really either ramp-up on new technologies or flaws in development processes and tools. <citation of irrelevant study on something else> <citation of myself, citing the aformentioned study>. ... do you now believe in this 1x claim? No? Hmm, perhaps I need to get it quoted more and then you'll believe it? The author's point is that "quoting it more" and "it seems reasonable" are the only basis for our belief in the 10x claim. But neither are scientifically, empirically relevant. We should follow up with further studies to confirm the effect, and then investigate the cause. But we don't. And because we have not, we don't have any scientific basis for believing this 10x claim. This isn't a matter of "dismissing all of our research based on it" -- there is nothing to dismiss. There has been no sufficient research. Oddly, my initial misread is inaccurate. There are far more studies supporting the existance of precognition than supporting this 10x claim. ;-)