http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group...
Anyways, this article singles our Turing and Kahneman but it seems this is a fairly common pitfall/mistake among, well, almost everyone who uses statistics.
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou...
This may be true, but that doesn't mean all social science is equivalent to parapyschology. Lots of it may go much higher than just "clearing the same bar".
It would be a pretty bad test that you could pass by scoring a 5% on. And a score of 99% passes that. That doesn't mean the 99% is a bad score.
The most prominent paranormal researchers employ far more skeptical rigour than other skeptical commentators who dismiss any finding. Because it's called "paranormal" the default is "there must be something wrong with the methods" and so naturally people find fault with the methods. Hypothetically, even if real paranormal effects are surfacing in the data, the nature of the research works against persuading certain circles.
It's very common to be perfectly aware of the mistakes previous generations made, have studied them, but not internalize that we are currently making similar ones that will be studied in the future.