At least we can finally say, "After 30 years of research, no conclusive evidence was produced to support the claim that the mind can influence matter and energy on its own, or that the mind can perceive conditions and events without the use of the seven physical senses."
At least we have that.
Actually, that's a good point, although again it comes back to the quality of the research in the first place.
But I often make that same argument for the entire field of Parapsychology. If, after around 100 years, nothing replicable has been found, what on earth is the point of continuing to spend money, time and effort of it? At least until such a time as (real) science makes a breakthrough that changes our knowledge and understanding of the physical world to allow for the possibility of paranormal ability. As far as present understanding goes, telepathy is not possible because there is no mechanism for it, right? So until that understanding changes based on new physical evidence, I don't see the point of testing the people who claim to be able to do it, or even those who don't. Shouldn't the default position be that there simply isn't anything there to test?
Take Sheldrake's telephone telepathy experiments as an example. There is nothing about the claims of telephone telepathy that can't be explained by mundane means. So why spend the money continuing to pursue a telepathic explanation as opposed to, say, a gardening explanation or an ice-skating explanation? What annoys me about it is that perception does not equal reality, and research like this seems to be trying to
make perception reality. Why? Just because some people think it's spooky that they 'know' it's their sister on the line before answering, why does the explanation for that have to be that yes, it is spooky! Why can't it be no, it's not spooky, you just perceive it that way!
