Bearing this in mind, a poor sci-fi story would either fail to set those rules, or introduce an idea/plot twist that violates it’s own rules.

I haven’t seen “Push” yet, but based on Kristen’s brief review, it looks like the filmmakers failed to set up their story’s reality.

“Just saying, ‘well, that’s the way it is,’ doesn’t really fly anymore.” It not only doesn’t fly, it’s also lazy storytelling.

I’m all for being skeptically minded, but I don’t let it ruin the fun of a good piece of fiction.

“A 1995 review of the literature concludes that although remote viewing experiments resulted in better than chance results (termed “small to medium” effects), there was no way of confirming the result was due to a psi phenomenon. The review also argues against the usefulness of remote viewing for intelligence gathering purposes.

Verdict? The science fails to back-up the claims.”

So, better-than-chance results, but “the science fails to back-up the claims”? I’m not sure I understand the thinking there. Sure, you could say that “more research is needed”, but you can’t say that the science *failed* to back-up the claim.

To be more precise, the evidence was looked at by statistician Jessica Utts, and well-known skeptic Ray Hyman. Utts’ conclusion was:

“Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established…Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.”

Ray Hyman, as would be expected, was more guarded. Nevertheless, one would have to say that he was struggling for a valid explanation:

“I accept Professor Utts’ assertion that the statistical results of the SAIC and other parapsychological experiments “are far beyond what is expected by chance.” Parapsychologists, of course, realize that the truth of this claim does not constitute proof of anomalous cognition. Numerous factors can produce significant statistical results.

…In the present discussion I am not considering fraud or statistical errors. This leaves only methodological oversight as the source for a plausible alternative to psychic functioning. Utts has concluded that “arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws are soundly refuted.” If she is correct, then I would have to agree with her bottom line “that psychic functioning has been well established.”

Obviously I do not agree that all possibilities for alternative explanations of the non-chance results have been eliminated. The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present. Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility–especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.”

As such, I respectfully disagree with your summation that “the science fails to back-up the claims”. At this stage, it has.

Why wouldn’t they ask for you to be on the show, directly? An intelligent, highly educated, attractive female … actively use a science professional to make the case?

Ratings bump maybe?

Just because “governments around the world employ individuals with this ability” doesn’t mean it actually works.

What!!!

Lies, lies!!! Damnable and accursed lies. That’s it, get David Icke on the phone, she refuses to believe. She needs “re-educated”. Definitely.

Next she’s going to come off with something about how governments don’t have societies best interests in mind at all times. Pffft.

{/exit sarcasm.exe}