Experimental, or at the very least, quasi-experimental research designs that are carefully designed to address threats to internal validity are needed to make any meaningful difference in terms of changing researchers' and professionals' minds. Videos created or disseminated by these folks, along with anecdotal information, are insufficient evidence, at best.
Can you explain what you mean by
changing their minds?I could read that a few ways. They could have an explanation for the phenomena they're witnessing and after rigorous testing change their explanation.
They could assume the claims made by the participants are lies and after rigorous testing accept the results and change their assumptions.
The testing is being done as part of a documentary afaik.
What I find interesting is having the opportunity to view these clips demonstrating blind sight from seemingly honest people. It's anecdotal evidence of these "tests" and I accept them on that basis aware of the limitations on veracity.
I can both understand what I'm watching as manufactured trickery AND a real display of abnormal ability.
I don't need to expend any energy debunking, if it's fake nothing changes but if it's real the implications are fascinating to look into.