I don't however, think that all mainstream scientists are so hard nosed, in fact, I think its mostly a select and vocal few. I have the fortune of meeting a number of PhD students and fellow masters students where I study. The ones that are actually taking science courses have told me some very interesting things, as has a physicist who lectures there. One of them told me point blank that science is actually pretty restrictive and not very creative at the moment, and could benefit from interesting ideas. It's interesting because he's heard of sheldrake (doesn't agree with him) but appreciates that he's a smart guy with interesting proposals. Another who's a neuroscience doctoral student has told me we don't have much of an idea of how consciousness arises, and the physicist likewise told me that we cannot be certain of much. (I think). In essence, most working scientists are far more humble than say Krauss, Coyne, Wiseman, etc.
Increasingly it seems to me skeptics are this large in-group that works for its own audience. It's kind of like publications for political extremes, people go to hear the echoes but outside of those places you find more discussion.
I mean at one point Novella says:
This is one of those claims in which it is fair to say, if we know anything in science, we know that this is impossible. This is reversing the arrow of causation. To say that such results are a paradox is an understatement.
As David notes googling "
retrocausation quantum mechanics" or
quantum time backward suggests this may not be as certain as he thinks?
Also Wheeler's claim that the past isn't set until observed would also seem to put the quoted statement into question?
IIRC there other ways to explain precognition besides violating this arrow...and without any model of causation last I checked it's odd to try and assert the arrow is even definitive. Beyond Physicalism even includes a chapter by the physicist Henry Stapp wherein he offers some possibilities within largely standard physics for precognition (just accept the consciousness causes collapse interpretation).
And of course causality itself lacks a definite scientific or philosophical understanding,
as has been discussed recently.
Specifically regarding Novella's attempt at a smear attack:
Did the journal publish successful replications (which as David notes do exist) but not the failed replications, or just no replications in general regarding Bem's work?
Do they publish replications in general, but refused to for Bem's work?
Novella himself makes note of certain embarrassing failures
such as failure of replication in psychology.
Beyond replication there seems to be a sample size problem? ->
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience
A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. Here, we show that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low. The consequences of this include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results. There are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful. Improving reproducibility in neuroscience is a key priority and requires attention to well-established but often ignored methodological principles.
Novella seems to try single out Bem's research, but it seems this is a much more pervasive problem. I would question whether it makes parapsychology as a whole a "rotten branch" as that would depend on some independent criteria one can use to compare difference branches with?
I know Sheldrake has also gone into the credibility problem science faces so I don't think parapsychology is trying to shy away from this problem?
In fact I'd be more concerned by some of issues he mentions that affect us more than the reality of minimal precognition:
In 2011, German researchers in the drug company Bayer found in an extensive survey that
more than 75% of the published findings could not be validated.
In 2012, scientists at the American drug company Amgen published
the results of a study in which they selected 53 key papers deemed to be “landmark” studies and tried to reproduce them. Only 6 (11%) could be confirmed.
Makes you wonder what the skeptic groups were doing when all this bad science was happening...
Additionally there's a Sheldrake podcast where discusses the file drawer problem where only positive results are published. He also argues parapsychology has actually led the sciences in dealing with some of this stuff. (He also mentions retrocausation and presentiment experiments.)
Perhaps parapsychologists might actually help clean out the rot from the other branches of science that have embarrassed themselves?