Quantum field theory.

The experiments we have would NOT be wrong. Psi is indicating a new domain of discovery.

"Domain of discovery." Word salad.

You're joking, I hope.

The Jeffrey's–Lindley paradox has nothing to do with "nullifying a small to medium effect size," whatever that even means.

*When you have collections of many hundreds of personal accounts that are investigated and analyzed and published, they are, by definition, not anecdotal. *It's called field research.

The one thing I've noticed that consistently divides proponents and skeptics is that proponents give great weight to

anecdotes field research, whereas skeptics consider such

testimony research to be too prone to bias to take very seriously.

And what, then, about pessimistic meta-induction? Historically all our theories have proven to be fundamentally incorrect.

I disagree. Mostly, our prior theories have been found to be approximations, limiting, or special cases of more general theories.

How about our incomplete knowledge of the physical world?

According to Carroll, the physics of everything that could effect us on the macrospcopic level of everyday life is completely understood. There's no room for psi. Although he presents summaries of experiments to support this assertion, I have to admit I don't have the necessary background to assess his claims. The remaining gaps in our knowledge of physics relate to the very, very small and the very, very, very large scales

How can one be so certain about such low priors?

Questions about the probability of a prior probability are nonsensical.

And again, discoveries have, almost by definition, low priors.

Sorry, but that's just not true.

So my point is, so what if it has a low prior? That can't be used as a legitimate reason against it existing.

If something has a low probability, it probably doesn't exist. That's what having a low probability means.

What was the prior probability of quantum theory?

The question isn't really answerable as posed. But what was the prior probability that something resembling quantum theory would emerge as the answer to then-unsolved problems in physics, pretty high, I would think.

I guess the recently elected president of the American Statistical Association and chair of the department of statistics for University of California, Irvine doesn't understand Bayesian analysis.

Utts' Bayesian analysis of Bem's paper did nothing to address the question of p-hacking. Neither did Wagenmakers'. Wagenmakers first pointed out the evidence of p-hacking, but then he put that aside, and assumed for the sake of the Bayes analysis to show the evidential value of the results in support (or lack thereof) for psi assuming the results were legit. Utts likewise assumed that the data results were legit in her Bayes analysis.

In other words, she understands Bayesian inference. You don't