You have not established that the Bem's experiments were "false positives." Knock off with the pseudo-scientific bullh!t where you think that some potential flaws in the studies therefore falsifies the research. If you had any clue to the process of science you would realize that this is a process and more research is needed to test the hypothesis that those possible flaws in fact were the result of the experimental results. You're just trying to jump right to saying it was "false positives" which is unfounded. I already told you that this charade when on for decades with the Ganzfeld experiments, only to find out later after addressing all the supposed methodological flaws, they ended up providing better evidence!
Second, you claim that Bem's meta-analysis of 90 experiments "has been shown to be the product of statistical manipulation." Based on what evidence? You have not addressed the similar results that Mossbridge et al. obtained in their meta-analysis of other studies. You have to demonstrate that it was a result of manipulation. You can't just claim it.
When you say "But there's no phenomena" you're just assuming the results you want, but that's not how science works. You attempt to attribute all sorts of psychology to Bem without knowing what his motivations are in attempt to discredit him along with terms like "leap of faith" and "woo woo nonsense." Please, leave out the ignorant bullsht and stick to real arguments. That's an appeal to motivation and that does not demonstrate anything and just makes you look like an arrogant fool. Stick to real arguments.
When you say "The argument that in the history of science many effects were discovered prior to the phenomena itself is a fallacy," you demonstrate a breathtaking ignorance of scientific history. You do realize that quantum theory is based on many experiments that found effects before we really understood what was going on, right? Everything from black body radiation to the photoelectric effect to the double slit experiment.
To try to object that Bem "could not describe what it is, what its mechanisms are" is complete nonsense. Again, this is how quantum theory was arrived at. Just imagine! Telling the founders of quantum theory like Einstein and Planck that quantum theory must be "woo woo nonsense" and that they are making "a leap of faith" that it is merely what they "ardently want to believe." By using experiments on black body radiation they were trying "to open a gap in our rational understanding of reality" so they could "fill it with [their] woo woo nonsense." What complete and utter nonsense you are spouting.
And don't try to twist my words; you know damned well that I did not try to claim that psi is real only because many believe it to be true. You separate out that quote from the entire chain of Bayesian reasoning in an intellectually dishonest attempt to try to claim I was guilty of a logical fallacy.
I'm not lost in semantics, you just don't understand basic epistemology. Again, science is the application of math, logic, and plausible reasoning with empirical methods of learning about the world. You are acting like science is flawed because it uses statistics because it is not flawless and requiring that it be in order to have any justifiable knowledge. And whatever nonsense you are talking about with the goal of logic is contrary to that of science. You do realize that quantum theory is based on probability and statistics, right? And that it is breathtakingly accurate, right? Is quantum theory flawed now, too?
Whether the p =0.05 standard needs to be changed is a matter for the researchers. However, the p values in the meta analyses presented are nowhere near that anyway so it is irrelevant if it needs to be 0.005 or even 0.0005. Until a new p value standard is reached, you really don't have a real objection. You have a concern with the status of the p value standard, which many people do, but concerns do not mean that the entire foundation is flawed.
The response about why it wouldn't show with any other picture is not an objection. There shouldn't be any effect under any condition. Bem did provide a suggestion as to why this effect is seen with the erotic stimuli, but again, strictly speaking that is irrelevant because there should not be an effect with any of them. Your objection is just completely irrelevant and you're trying to pick fly sh1t out of pepper. This is just the same with you wanting to require that he also test a condition with 3, 4, and 5 options. This simply vacuous. First off, practically speaking, there isn't the budget or time. Second, it's irrelevant. The statistical analysis is valid because the null hypothesis is clear and statistical analysis is needed. There should not be any effect whether it's 2,3,4, or 5. Again, this is a non-objection.
Now, with all this said, the problems with looking at individual papers and individual attempted replications is precisely why meta-analysis is so heavily used. As already stated, Mossbridge et al. came to the conclusion that:
We can go back and forth on the Bem paper if you want, but when it comes down to it, the meta-analyses are much better evidence, and they indicate there is a significant effect. You should clearly see that your worry over the p = 0.05 standard is irrelevant to a p value of 2.7x10^-12 with a z score of 6.9 that blows by the standard that 5 constitutes a "discovery."The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size (random effects: overall [weighted] ES=0.21, 95%CI=0.13-0.29, z=5.3, p<5.7x10-8; fixed effects: overall ES=0.21, 95%CI=0.15-0.27, z=6.9, p<2.7x10-12). Higher quality experiments produce a quantitately larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies.
That the physical or "material" properties are emergent and that the information state is primary. That is clearly indicated in the teleportation experiments. I just described the nature of it, so you might want to re-read it.