Oh it definitely isnt reliable as a be-all-end-all proof or for than matter non-proof for psi, my point originally if you remember was to show that psi has been utilised with success - since that was crunchy's original assertion - that psi has never been utilised by anyone for anything. Nope! all we can do is see that they had a perceived success rate high enough to for police depts to keep using them. Although again, the original point in this isntance isnt to prove psi outright, simply to show its utility. From what ive read a new dept took control of the program and quality of the people they brought in sharply dropped from there. Prior to that - again you have statistically significant results, certainly enough to keep the program going for well over a decade. I seem to remember Homo floresiensis being lumped in with a vauge debunking on archeological anomalies at one point - of course the idea of a sub-species of dwarf like humans is now completely accepted by the scientific community. Its not so much that im concerned about what they are critical about, its what they arnt critical about that bothers me. Anyone can debunk things like creationism or spoon-bending, the problem is they set themselves either easy targets or things that simply dont have masses of supportive evidence (for one reason or another) which makes it very easy to rustle up an article with abit of selective wording and make it appear as no evidence ever existed in the first place. Even if someone does call them out on being biased and not being genuinely critical they can always simply say that youre an odd-ball who feels threatened that his or her pet theory is being bashed (much as youre trying to do now). Its a very selective type of skepticsm that these sorts of sites champion, this is the problem i have with them. Id really love to see the odd article about dark matter, m-theory, or black-holes, but ive looked there arnt any - they only deal with things that have that backroom snicker factor. I suspect because theres either some sort of reverence or irrational fear of tackling things that lie within accepted science. But the thing is that's what critical thinking is - its being critical of everything you dont pack up and go home because it looks and smells like proper science so its probably ok (even when there's no more evidence for it than there is for spoon-bending). Generally i think it is, i just dont really understand why you get all reactionary whenever i voice concerns about people like Randi or Skepdic. Im a paid-up nihilist im afraid, so believing in anythings going to be abit difficult for me, but if it makes you feel more secure in calling me a believer then by all means do. Im sure i went over this with you in the Randi thread already, unless im thinking of someone else, source - Lynn McTaggart - the field (she interviews some people whove worked with Randi in the past in a section of the book).