Perhaps this falls into the category of "journalism" that seems so despised in this discussion, but Jonah Lehrer wrote a nice article for The New Yorker that touches on issues relevant to the debate (similar to the points already brought up in the thread: that subtle biases in study design, analysis and interpretation can introduce significant biases and lead to erroneous results). In particular, he talks about some work done by Jonathan Schooler:
In essence, Schooler replicated the results of the Bem paper but, after performing many more tests, showed that the results were noting but a statistical anomaly. I'm not aware whether Schooler published these results.
This, especially in light of other such examples detailed in Lehrer's piece, is why I'm hesitant to trust findings based primarily on statistical data without a plausible, empirically-tested mechanism explaining the results.
Nah, when you post journalism, it's OK... you're the world-tree after all . Plus, your article actually offers information rather than obscuring it when the original paper is available. Thank you.