[Others]

I don't think that's a fair summary... The author provides a more nuanced view than just "there is no effect." You're nitpicking from one section about theory, without considering the article as a whole. This is especially egregious considering that the article spends so much time talking about confirmation bias.

[jdoliner]

It even says explicitly:

> Do you want to know our conclusions without any regard to how we reached those conclusions? ... If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, then you, like me, have natural human cognitive dysfunctions.

[StavrosK]

I don't understand that. Since I can't educate myself on everything required to make an informed decision on whether the paper is true or not, I decide to just trust someone else's opinion. I pick people to trust based on various criteria (how well they've cited their sources, how much other trustworthy people trust them, etc) and then just blindly believe whatever they say.

What else can I do?

[mquander]

> how well they've cited their sources, how much other trustworthy people trust them, etc

That sounds to me like a "regard to how they reached those conclusions" (maybe a regard to how they reached a subset of their conclusions, and extrapolating to the rest). It's not the most regard you could possibly have, but it's lots.

[davros]

Actually, reading the article as a whole, I would say an even stronger conclusion is warranted - almost certainly bad science but we should keep investigating just in case.

[Trombone12]

The highest the actual summary reaches is "But also, despite those inadequacies, the possibility of a new force-producing effect cannot be irrefutably ruled out."

[nkoren]

This.

> ...take the time to notice both the pros and cons of the article, not just the parts you want to be true. Deciphering reality takes time instead of just listening to reflexive beliefs. It requires that one’s mind be open to the possibility you might be right and equally open to the possibility you might be wrong.