[foltik]

Ritualistic “magical thinking” stays the same regardless of outcomes or new information. Science does the exact opposite - predictive power determines what’s true. Nobody said your alien hypothesis is impossible; just that it’s highly implausible. No predictions, no evidence, no way to test it.

[Loquebantur]

Your assessment of "magical thinking" being impervious to criticism funnily applies just the same to the attitude exhibited here regarding "fringed" ideas like "telepathy". The "Telepathy Tapes" are "new information", people's attitudes stay the same regardless.

"Predictive power" isn't the source of truth in science, evidence for that attribute is. Given even only a hint of such evidence, scientists are supposed to work in order to acquire more, not to ignore the hint because that work would inconvenience them.

You claim that "alien hypothesis" was implausible, but that statement would require solid arguments in its favor. And those don't exist. You rather argue from ignorance, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Again, your pretense of "no predictions, no evidence, no way to test it" is simply counter-factual. You argue from ignorance. (To reiterate, evidence isn't the same as "proof")

[foltik]

The “Telepathy Tapes” aren’t new information. They repeat a setup already tested under controlled conditions: facilitators know the answers and guide participants through non-telepathic cues, usually without realizing it. When those cues are blocked, the “telepathy” disappears. Scientists did the rational thing, tried to replicate the effect, and it failed.

Absence of evidence isn’t proof of absence, but when every controlled test comes up empty, that’s the result. You might as well call a magician’s card trick new evidence for magic.

[Loquebantur]

You invoke magic when you pretend, those "tests" were somehow "proof" instead of merely evidence against the claim.

Argument from authority is no valid scientific approach, neither is you putting up a straw-man (your claim how the supposed effect came to be). Just because that's how you can imagine how the "trick" might work doesn't mean, it's what's actually happening. Just because the result (dis-)pleases you doesn't mean, the experiment was done (in-)correctly.

[foltik]

I am not invoking magic. When proper controls are added, the effect disappears. That is probabilistic evidence against the claim, not proof of anything. Just the outcome of repeated tests.

No one is appealing to authority. The experiments are public, the methods transparent, and the results reproducible. If there is a better design, describe it.

Facilitator cueing is not a guess or straw man. It has been directly measured in controlled studies, and when those cues are removed, performance drops to chance. That is what the data shows.

You say tests are not proof, which is true, but repeated failure still counts. You call cueing a straw man, though it has been measured directly. Is there any outcome that would convince you the effect isn’t there? If not then this isn’t a discussion about evidence anymore.