Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Universal Intelligence"?

[Neo-Scholastic]

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science, psi - that is ESP, remote viewing, all those things - is proven. That begs the question, do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal?" Dr. Richard Wiseman, noted skeptic.

In other words, no matter how solid the proof, he will demand more because it challenges his belief about how the world should work. It just goes to show, Chas, that your commitment to science is just an argument of convenience. You're antiscience when it suits you.

You did not source your quote. You're not very good at this, are you.

He follows that statement, according to this blog, with:

According to this dailymail article, skeptic Richard Wiseman argues:
"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven,
but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.

But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.

Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world,
we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence."

So, his opinion is not based on evidence. He has no proof, he cites no proof. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.

His opinion is based on studies like those I mentioned earlier. The full quote only reinforces mery statement. After psi researchese have found positive results and satisfied the strict protocols required by skeptics, the skeptics like Wiseman raise the bar after the fact. Science is supposed to be objective. When you insert a very subjective judgment into the process, like calling some things ordinary and others extraordinary, then you lose all credibility as a neutral experimenter. It injects bias.