First of all, let's not forget who has the burden of proof.
Parapsychologists having the burden of proof doesn't absolve you from rules of scientific discourse. The fact that the burden of proof is not on you does not mean you can throw out un-falsifiable criticisms as evidence against parapsychology.
Jay said:
If parapsychologists want to convince anyone other than parapsychologists that their effects are real, then they need to find convincing methodologies to do so.
What methodologies are wrong with the autoganzfeld experiments? This has been refined an awful lot through debate and criticism over many decades including the skeptic Hyman. You can't just throw out a vague criticism like this explicit suggestion that the methodology is flawed.
Jay said:
With the likes of Bem and Radin representing themselves as experts, but running around p-hacking the field to death,
So you want to tell me that they are "p-hacking to death" but I am supposed to then accept that you say it could be almost "impossible to detect?" If you can't demonstrate or quantify this in some way, then it is an invalid criticism.
Jay said:
a reasonable response to the field, whose hypotheses are considered highly implausible,
An implausible hypothesis is
not any evidence against it. History is absolutely full of "implausible" hypotheses that ended up being major advances. How plausible was quantum theory? Einstein thought it was highly implausible. Big discoveries are by definition improbable. That doesn't make an improbable hypothesis correct, but it doesn't make it wrong.
Jay said:
is that all psi studies with positive effects are false, either due to random or systematic error. Given the highly visible examples of p-hacking, selective reporting of exploratory results, and willful omission of ones own studies from ones own meta-analyses on the one hand, versus the sheer scientific implausibility of every psi hypothesis on the other hand, and the inability for non-parapsychologists to reproduce psi effects experimentally on the other, other hand, it is far more believable that positive psi results are due to shenanigans than to psi.
In various analyses done by analysts outside the field such at Saunder or Utts, they do not find this to be the case. I would rather put my trust in highly respected statisticians than in vague unfalsifiable criticisms or criticisms that have already been falsified.
Non-parapsychologists rarely attempt to replicate experiments, and if going outside the Ganzfeld category, you even have critics like Wiseman replicating research and then misrepresenting it as not replicating. I have so far in my research seen far far more "shenanigans" from those critical of psi than from parapsychologists.
Jay said:
Indeed, in my opinion, given the history of the field vis a vis paranormal implausibility, there is nothing that parapsychologists can do alone to produce convincing experimental evidence for psi. On the other hand, if skeptical scientists alone, or in adversarial collaboration with parapsychologists were to start consistently reproducing psi effects experimentally, I would have to start taking psi results more seriously.
I suppose this is your position in a nutshell, which is quite unreasonable.