Seems like they are running experiments and collecting data to test their hypothesis. Doesn't that count as science? Or do you call it trash science simply because the hypothesis seems unreasonable?
> Schiltz is a psi believer [... but Wiseman] is a psi skeptic [...]
> The idea was to plan an experiment together, with both of them agreeing on every single tiny detail. They would then go to a laboratory and set it up, again both keeping close eyes on one another. Finally, they would conduct the experiment in a series of different batches. [...]
> The results? Schlitz’s trials found strong evidence of psychic powers, Wiseman’s trials found no evidence whatsoever.
Running experiments and collecting data is necessary, but not sufficient. Bias and other failures are extremely hard to avoid.
Saying "it's not science" is (derogatory) shorthand for the assertion that their results are due to failures in their process, as opposed to being reflective of reality.
0: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou...
Consider that they may be falsifying or misinterpreting data. The only way to be sure they aren't -- or pretty sure, anyway -- is to have independent researchers be able to follow the same repeatable process in order to replicate the results.
I don't know enough about this case to say whether they have a good repeatable experimental process -- it's possible that the website just smells so strongly of woo that nobody has even tried to replicate their results in the first place. But without that independent verification, the proposed results seem questionable.