So your one example of where you admit you were wrong is one where you don't actually admit you were wrong? :shrug: As said - to help reduce experimental noise. And how do you best establish random chance unless you have people supposedly randomly choosing? If you merely look to go against a mathematical formula when there is far more within the experiment than mere maths then you open yourself up to the fairly significant question of whether the formula is correct in the first instance. And as for experiments not using them... well, can anybody guess why psychic experiments are generally not lauded as the epitome of scientific rigour? And those that are tend to conclude that psychic abilities were not identified? How is this control? Can you name me any psychic experiment that has been accepted as adequately rigourous. The absence of a control group within such experiments does not justify the absence, but rather brings into question the rigour of the experiments. How do you know unless you do it. What if the person DOES recall as much apparent detail as person who wakes up while in REM? Yes it is. So you should be looking to eliminate experimental noise with regard such dreams - to isolate that which is specific only to the state of dreaming. And how better to do that than conduct the same experiments with those NOT dreaming? Sure - people can study the possibility, and test for it. But who is claiming it false based on belief? They are claiming it false based on the lack of evidence for it - i.e. they are taking what they consider to be the rational position when confronted with zero evidence supporting the claim. The key issue is whether they leave open any room for evidence arising that might show it to be true.