Evaluating Parapsychological Claims

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511804632.014

13 - Evaluating Parapsychological Claims

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Ray Hyman

Edited by

Robert J. Sternberg ,

Henry L. Roediger III and

Diane F. Halpern

Show author details

Ray Hyman: Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Robert J. Sternberg: Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Henry L. Roediger III: Affiliation:
Washington University, St Louis
Diane F. Halpern: Affiliation:
Claremont McKenna College, California

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Imagine that you have been assigned to evaluate a parapsychological claim. The assignment could be from a journal editor or from a media outlet. Or it could come from a granting agency or an instructor. You might be faced with such a task in your role as a referee for a professional journal. Or you might take on the assignment out of curiosity.

How would you proceed? Your first step might be to decide on the scope of the parapsychological claim. Are you dealing with a specific claim based on one experiment? Or is the claim based on evidence from a series of experiments? Perhaps you want to assess the status of the entire field of parapsychology.

What, indeed, makes a claim “parapsychological?” The term parapsychology was borrowed by J. B. Rhine to refer to what previously had been called psychical research. With the new label, Rhine wanted to promote an experimental science. Previous to Rhine, psychical research had focused on field investigations of haunted houses, tests of spiritualist mediums, surveys of premonitory dreams, and other dramatic, but controversial, paranormal claims. Rhine wanted parapsychology to focus on quantitative evidence obtained in controlled, laboratory settings. Beginning in the 1930s, parapsychologists started accumulating experimental evidence for the existence of extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis (PK). According to the glossary in the back of The Journal of Parapsychology, ESP is defined as “Experience of, or response to, a target object, state, event, or influence without sensory contact.” ESP includes telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Critical Thinking in Psychology , pp. 216 - 231

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804632.014 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akers, C. (1984). Methodological criticisms of parapsychology. In Krippner, S. (Ed.), Advances in parapsychological research (vol. 4, pp. 112–164). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.Google Scholar

Bem, D. J. (1994). Response to Hyman. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 25–27.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4–18.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bem, D. J., Palmer, J., & Broughton, R. S. (2001). Updating the ganzfeld data base: A victim of its own success?Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 207–18.Google Scholar

Bierman, D. J. (2000). On the nature of anomalous phenomena: Another reality between the world of subjective consciousness and the objective world of physics? In Van, P. Loocke (Ed.), The physical nature of consciousness (pp. 269–292). New York: Benjamin.Google Scholar

Broad, C. D. (1953). Religion, philosophy and psychical research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Hansel, C. E. M. (1966). ESP: A scientific evaluation. New York: Scribner's.Google Scholar

Honorton, C. (1985). Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A response to Hyman. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 51–91.Google Scholar

Honorton, C., & Harper, S. (1974). Psi-mediated imagery and ideation in an experimental procedure for regulating perceptual input. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 68, 156–168.Google Scholar

Honorton, C., Berger, R. E., Varvoglis, M. P., Quant, M., Derr, P., Schechter, E. I., et al. (1990). Psi communication in the ganzfeld: Experiments with an automated testing system and a comparison with a meta-analysis of earlier studies. Journal of Parapsychology, 54, 19–24.Google Scholar

Hyman, R. (1957). Review of Modern experiments in telepathy. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 52, 607–610. (Reprinted in Hyman, 1989).CrossRef Google Scholar

Hyman, R. (1985a). A critical historical overview of parapsychology. In Kurtz, P. (Ed.), A skeptic's handbook of parapsychology (pp. 3–96). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Hyman, R. (1985b). The ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical appraisal. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 3–49.Google Scholar

Hyman, R. (1986). Parapsychological research: A tutorial review and critical appraisal. Proceedings of the IEEE, 74, 823–849.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hyman, R. (1994). Anomaly or artifact? Comments on Bem and Honorton. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 19–23.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hyman, R., & Honorton, C. (1986). A joint communiqué: The psi ganzfeld controversy. Journal of Parapsychology, 50, 351–364.Google Scholar

Markwick, B. (1985). The establishment of data manipulation in the Soal-Shackleton experiments. In Kurtz, P. (Ed.), A skeptic's handbook of parapsychology (pp. 287–311). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Milton, J., & Wiseman, R. (1999). Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 387–391.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Milton, J., & Wiseman, R. (2001). Does psi exist? Reply to Storm and Ertel (2001). Psychological Bulletin, 127, 434–438.CrossRef Google Scholar

Price, G. R. (1955). Science and the supernatural. Science, 122, 359–367.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Radin, D. I. (1997). The conscious universe. San Francisco: HarperEdge.Google Scholar

Soal, S. G., & Bateman, F. (1954). Modern experiments in telepathy (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Storm, L., & Ertel, S. (2001). Does psi exist? Milton and Wiseman's (1999) meta-analysis of ganzfeld research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 424–433.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Utts, J. (1991). Replication and meta-analysis in parapsychology. Statistical Science, 6, 363–403 [Includes commentaries and Utts' rejoinder to commentators].CrossRef Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.