Should we "check our priors at the door", though? When neutrinos were "observed" to travel faster than light, the most appropriate conclusion wasn't "well I guess we were fundamentally wrong about just about everything we've found in the last century", but was probably something like "okay, but can I take a closer look at your data". With priors left aside, the foundations of physics are questioned. I think the same holds for psi: if you abandon your priors and just make conclusions from which way some data swings, there is something very different about the universe than what has previously been attested to.

I think Scott's analysis of "my priors against this are so strong that evidence in support of it looks more like evidence against the validity of the methodology" broadly matches with mine.

Forgive me if I am misreading you, here.

Section V is where he explains why he doesn't believe the results.

"I looked through his list of ninety studies for all the ones that were both exact replications and had been peer-reviewed (with one caveat to be mentioned later). I found only seven...Three find large positive effects, two find approximate zero effects, and two find large negative effects. Without doing any calculatin’, this seems pretty darned close to chance for me.

...

That is my best guess at what happened here – a bunch of poor-quality, peer-unreviewed studies that weren’t as exact replications as we would like to believe, all subject to mysterious experimenter effects."