[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Novella very embarrassingly defends his 'research' going to a 'psychic fair' having doctored photographs, approaching 3 fortune tellers and proclaiming his feeling on the outcome of the matter was 'zero' or 'zippo' .

Just to be clear, he never claimed it was any sort of formal research. He says specifically at about 36:35, "Not lab research...we're not lab researchers in parapsychology or psychology." He was obviously making the point that, contrary to Tsakiris' insinuation, many (most?) scientific skeptics are not simply armchair deniers. Most of us are more than willing (eager even) to review any paranormal claims.

But when this willingness is extrapolated to the level of controlled double-blind experiments and whatnot, then you're talking about resources. Of all sorts. And that's really what this comes down to, isn't it? Sheldrake et al and their fanclubs: They're trying to convince the world that their research is still worth it. Dr. Novella explains in this segment that there are specific legitimate reasons mainstream science disregards the current state of paranormal research. He explains that rather than some grand conspiracy of religionists or a monumental example of groupthink, it really just comes down to the question, Is paranormal research worth it?

Credibility problems, serious experiment design problems, small effect sizes.... Lots of factors play into the considered disbursement of resources. Because of course science doesn't care what you choose to research. You can seek to prove that there is sharp cheddar cheese on the moon in sufficient quantity to lend truth to the ancient myth that the moon is, in fact, made of cheese. Knock yourself out. A clever moon cheese researcher could come up with lots of clever tests and look in lots of clever places and occupy lots and lots of time. And other resources.

I'm sure if someone faked a medical condition (e.g. produced artificial damage to skin surface) , gave false information and went along to tape record Dr Steven Novella, he would grossly misdiagnose or get 'zippo' right.

Maybe. But what does that matter? A medical diagnosis is supported by and then affirmed or discounted by scientific procedures. At the very least, a faked sitting demonstrates in no uncertain terms that these vaunted otherworldly powers aren't really so powerful, for whatever that's worth.

Following his own logic, is he implying such experiments would make him unqualified to be in medicine or a fraudulent practitioner?

You're not interpreting the experiment correctly. The whole point is that the psychic claims to have some independent source of information. This sort of thing is just another rail of many in the fence of evidence that keeps so-called "psychics" out there on the criminal fringe.

During the skepiko interview Novella claims 'The goal is to design an experiment in such a manner it doesn't matter what you believe Nobel sounding words indeed, yet in his own trial, we see the very opposite action at work,

His own "trial"? It was a trip to the psychic fair.

he chose money seeking fortune tellers, unaware they were being tested or deceived,

In the very first example, Jay apparently simply presented a picture of him and his wife and asked for a reading on his wife, without identifying her. And the psychic totally blew it. But whatever. It wasn't a scientific test, and it wasn't presented as such. It is what it is. As for being "tested" without their knowledge, how is that relevant?

set the bar high (assuming any scientific measurement was employed at all)

Set the bar high how? What do you mean?

so that what is under test is extremely unlikely to contradict ones own cherished viewpoint.

I think it's disingenuos to present the SGU's visit to the psychic fair as representative of formal research by scientific skeptics. At about 26 minutes into that episode, Jay talks about how the whole point of the skull photo was to do something humorous, not something scientific.

One thing become increasingly clear from listening to his broadcast, Novella feels somewhat hostile towards paranormal claims and dismisses 80 years of controlled lab research ( i.e. not a trip to a psychic fair for an easy debunk) as 'noise' .

He doesn't simply dismiss it. He carefully explains why he equates it with noise.

Para psychological effects have been shown to be above 'noise', would he also dismiss the existence of neutrinos from the sun because the measurement of effects are also weak and erratic?

This is a false analogy. Neutrino detection has been reproduced many many times. Its statistical signal is anything but weak.

Novella statements about what percentages indicate a real effect are extraordinary arbitrary, one could dismiss much of his own medical field's statistical outcomes merely because these are lower than other areas of science such as physics.

This is a tu quoque fallacy. But it's meaningless anyway, because you don't cite specific examples. Are we talking risk assessment, treatment effectiveness, epidemiology, ...? I'm sure improper medical decisions have been made based on insufficient statistical evidence.

If Novella is unwilling to trust meta-analysis in that case particle physics, clinical medicine, psychology are all in serious trouble in his 'guide to the universe'.

This is a slippery slope fallacy. There are many reasons for evaluating meta analyses many different ways, e.g. the importance of absolute versus relative effectiveness. Your assertion here also relies on the unstated major premise that Dr. Novella's interpretation of this information is incorrect. I don't think you've demonstrated that.

Novella's viewpoints merely add 'noise' and confusion upon the work of those parapsychologists doing serious minded research into the subject of psi.

I submit that the psi field is lucky anyone with credibility is paying them any attention at all.