A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy.

Instead of continuing with another round of our debate on the psi ganzfeld experiments, we decided to collaborate on a joint communiqué. The Honorton-Hyman debate emphasized the differences in our positions, many of these being technical in nature. But during a recent discussion, we realized that we...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Parapsychology Vol. 82; pp. 106 - 118
Autores principales: Hyman, Ray, Honorton, Charles
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Rhine Research Center 2018 Supplement
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=136258441&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 136258441
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00223387
        PAY
      jtl: Journal of Parapsychology
      issn: 00223387
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 2018 Supplement
      vid: 82
      pid: 533
      pub: Rhine Research Center
    artinfo:
      ui:
        136258441
        10.30891/jopar.2018S.01.09
      ppf: 106
      ppct: 12
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 294KB
      tig:
        atl: A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy.
      aug:
        au:
          Hyman, Ray
          Honorton, Charles
      ab: Instead of continuing with another round of our debate on the psi ganzfeld experiments, we decided to collaborate on a joint communiqué. The Honorton-Hyman debate emphasized the differences in our positions, many of these being technical in nature. But during a recent discussion, we realized that we possessed similar viewpoints on many issues concerning parapsychological research. This communiqué, then, emphasizes these points of agreement. We agree that there is an overall significant effect in this data base that cannot reasonably be explained by selective reporting or multiple analysis. We continue to differ over the degree to which the effect constitutes evidence for psi, but we agree that the final verdict awaits the outcome of future experiments conducted by a broader range of investigators and according to more stringent standards. We make recommendations about how such experiments should be conducted and reported. Specific recommendations are about randomization, judging and feedback procedures, multiple analysis and statistics, documentation, and the growing role we believe meta-analysis will play in the evaluation of research quality and the assessment of moderating variables. We conclude that psi researchers and their critics share many common goals, and we hope that our joint communiqué will encourage future cooperation to further these goals.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N