@mkgus: "Just so we’re on the same page, just because there is no plausible explanation doesn’t mean the effect doesn’t exist."
I agree completely.
But lack of a plausible explanation remains a valid reason for questioning the effect. Especially since among observers there is no consensus. So the sky analogy would be more appropriate if you included than some people found it to be a different shade of blue that many if not most people could not see. In that regard lack of plausible explanation takes on more power as a defeater. Not proof, as you say, but still reasonable evidence.
The paradox is that at some level we are talking about a technical phenomenon with no good technical explanation. That is yet another reason to question the effect.
I agree completely.
But lack of a plausible explanation remains a valid reason for questioning the effect. Especially since among observers there is no consensus. So the sky analogy would be more appropriate if you included than some people found it to be a different shade of blue that many if not most people could not see. In that regard lack of plausible explanation takes on more power as a defeater. Not proof, as you say, but still reasonable evidence.
The paradox is that at some level we are talking about a technical phenomenon with no good technical explanation. That is yet another reason to question the effect.