Stop presuming to speak for "mainstream academia"you are not the totality of scientific community, you are a single individual editing a Wikipedia article on parapsychologyand you need to learn how to start sourcing your clams.
What sources call PEAR pseudoscience? Nature doesn't. Google doesn't. The Harvard article doesn't. Neither of the two NY times articles do. There are a dozen interviews with lab manager Dunne online, and none of those science journalists do either.  You're creating straw men and blowing them down...well done. Except nobody knows what the hell your point was supposed to be.
Either read the sources, read PEAR's books, and start contributing meaningful text to this article to document the historical context within which PEAR operated, or stop editing this article altogether. Stepping in to vandalize the article every now and then with unsourced accusations of "pseudoscience" (essentially against Wolfgang Pauli, Carl Jung, and Robert Jahn!) get us nowhere.