Posted: Dec 08, 2013 4:23 pm
MrFungus420 wrote:
Evidence of what??
That I don't find it convincing when a pseudo-science makes up its own journals so that they can claim to be peer-reviewed?
What criteria for pseudoscience are you applying? As in in which of the various definitions and epistemologies? You are aware that parapsychology scores better than most "mainstream" sciences in many categories using standard definitions when analysed? (See Holt et. al 2012) On replication and controls for instance parapsi scores very well indeed, as in degree of critical discussion in the journal literature?
I will happily educate you if not.
j x