Comment by foltik

I am not invoking magic. When proper controls are added, the effect disappears. That is probabilistic evidence against the claim, not proof of anything. Just the outcome of repeated tests.

No one is appealing to authority. The experiments are public, the methods transparent, and the results reproducible. If there is a better design, describe it.

Facilitator cueing is not a guess or straw man. It has been directly measured in controlled studies, and when those cues are removed, performance drops to chance. That is what the data shows.

You say tests are not proof, which is true, but repeated failure still counts. You call cueing a straw man, though it has been measured directly. Is there any outcome that would convince you the effect isn’t there? If not then this isn’t a discussion about evidence anymore.