Return to Answer

No, there is no serious scientific support for any of these. Some studies, even well designed, do sometimes see some sort of statistically significant effect, but the majority of studies do not (ref various meta studies). And if these phenomena were real, you would expect some people to be better at it than others, and no such people have been found.

This all illustrates the scientific importance of results being reproducible and should teach journalists to stop basing scary claims about this and that on a single study.

No, there is no serious scientific support for any of these. Some studies, even well designed, do sometimes see some sort of statistically significant effect, but the majority of studies do not (ref meta studies). And if these phenomena were real, you would expect some people to be better at it than others, and no such people have been found.

This all illustrates the scientific importance of results being reproducible and should teach journalists to stop basing scary claims about this and that on a single study.

No, there is no serious scientific support for any of these. Some studies, even well designed, do sometimes see some sort of statistically significant effect, but the majority of studies do not (ref various meta studies). And if these phenomena were real, you would expect some people to be better at it than others, and no such people have been found.

This all illustrates the scientific importance of results being reproducible, and should teach journalists to stop basing scary claims about this and that on a single study.

No, there is no serious scientific support for any of these. Some studies, even well designed, do sometimes see some sort of statistically significant effect, but the majority of studies do not (ref various meta studies). And if these phenomena were real, you would expect some people to be better at it than others, and no such people have been found.

This all illustrates the scientific importance of results being reproducible and should teach journalists to stop basing scary claims about this and that on a single study.

No, there is no serious scientific support for any of these. Some studies, even well designed, do sometimes see some sort of statistically significant effect, but the vast majority of studies do not. And if these phenomena were real, you would expect some people to be better at it than others, and no such people have been found.

This all illustrates the scientific importance of results being reproducible, and should teach journalists to stop basing scary claims about this and that on a single study.

No, there is no serious scientific support for any of these. Some studies, even well designed, do sometimes see some sort of statistically significant effect, but the majority of studies do not (ref various meta studies). And if these phenomena were real, you would expect some people to be better at it than others, and no such people have been found.

This all illustrates the scientific importance of results being reproducible, and should teach journalists to stop basing scary claims about this and that on a single study.