Response: Commentary: False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol

This paper is a pointed rebuttal after Radin and colleagues tried to defend their double-slit consciousness experiment. The authors lay out a damning case: when they ran a carefully controlled replication with encrypted data, they found a significant false alarm in the equipment but nothing where the "real" consciousness effect was supposed to show up. They also catch Radin's team engaging in HARKing — that's "Hypothesizing After Results are Known," basically changing your predictions after peeking at the answers, which is a big no-no in science. Two specific instances are documented: a statistical test falsely labeled as pre-planned and a last-minute switch to a different analysis strategy after unblinding. Perhaps most tellingly, three independent research groups all reached the same conclusion: this experiment is prone to producing false discoveries, especially when researchers go fishing through data after the fact.