Regarding telepathy...
https://www.sheldrake.org/research/animal-powers/a-dog-that-...
Sheldrake is my go-to example of bad science.
In one of his experiments monitored by another scientist, when the dog didn't respond in a way that met Sheldrake's criteria, Sheldrake changed the criteria in mid-experiment.
That one incident alone should be enough to dismiss any results coming from Sheldrake. He's not only dishonest but blithely unaware that he's being blatantly so.
But there's a crucial difference between that and the way original rule is phrased.
The fields one has to dismiss are characterized by things one knows is false by physics or combinatorics or other common sense things. Theories of telepathy, the flat earth, creation science or whatever.
The "you can't show me one good paper on the subject" is an appealing-seeming pronouncement but it's really dumb way to do it. Just say, "that doesn't make sense and you'd need huge evidence to prove it". Paper quality isn't really the question.