A tiny bit of searching: https://replicationindex.com/2018/01/05/bem-retraction/ https://replicationindex.com/2018/01/05/bem-retraction/ and a lovely quote: “

A tiny bit of searching: https://replicationindex.com/2018/01/05/bem-retraction/ https://replicationindex.com/2018/01/05/bem-retraction/ and a lovely quote: “I’m all for rigor, but I prefer other people do it. I see its importance—it’s fun for some people—but I don’t have the patience for it. If you looked at all my past experiments, they were always rhetorical devices. I gathered data to show how my point would be made. I used data as a point of persuasion, and I never really worried about, ‘Will this replicate or will this not?” (Daryl J. Bem, in Engber, 2017) also http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/2014/06/25/a-skeptics-review/ http://osc.centerforopenscience.org/2014/06/25/a-skeptics-re... but I don't like this: "If ever there was a paper that showed the futility of meta-analysis, this one is it. Here we have one of the most ridiculous claims that intelligent people have ever dared to make (yes; the hypothesis that aliens built the pyramids is more plausible than people being able to look into the future) – and a meta-analysis supports this claim. The unavoidable conclusion is not that psi exists; rather, it is that meta-analysis is a tool that is fraught with danger". The other points are perhaps valid. You talk about science but don't have the basic critical thinking to look for opposing viewpoints. You should be seriously embarrassed.