Of the 26 reviews posted here (not counting this comment), 22 are rated 4 or 5 stars. Only 3 reviews give 1 star, and all three of those are posted by one person.
This individual first claimed that the book is flawed because it relies too heavily on anecdotal evidence to make its case. This is false, as anyone who actually reads the book will immediately see. Then he claimed that the statistical methods are wrong. The implication is that psi research relies on methods that are different from those used in the conventional behavioral and social sciences. This too is false.
The case for psi in The Conscious Universe relies on conventional methods that are widely accepted and used in other scientific disciplines. The critic apparently prefers other statistical methods. But while the merits of such techniques may be debated, it overlooks an important point: For psi research to appeal to mainstream science, it must first demonstrate that conventional methods of analysis lead to a strong prima facie case that there is something interesting going on. Later (and only later), other proposed analysis techniques may be explored.
As one reviewer commented, don't take my word for it. Read this book and the associated literature and learn why well-informed skeptics, including the late Carl Sagan, have conceded that the usual criticisms (selective reporting, design flaws, fraud, etc.) are insufficient to explain away the cumulative scientific evidence for psi effects.
