If you think psi is a part of reality, then anything that doesn't preclude reality shouldn't preclude psi. It'd be like having a scientific method that somehow precluded testing paracetamol for pain management but allowed testing codeine.

I just don't see how it's meant to work here. If you think that something's part of reality, what's the problem with a stricter standard of proof? If someone screws it up, then it'll be obvious: loads of stuff will become untestable - (worse than just being impractically pricey to test, it will become in principle untestable) - at the same time.

Do you have any substantive objections to making the standard of proof stricter, other than that it would preclude psi?

If you think that a stricter standard of proof would preclude psi but not other things, why do you think psi is an accurate description?

----

Maybe what I'm saying is unscientific. :/

So be it, I guess. There's nothing innately great about science - it's just a tool; a method, to get to the truth. The truth itself is only really of value for its instrumental power, as far as I'm concerned - if you didn't require truth to actually do something, then you could make up any method and believe that its results were true.