Psi research claims
Does psi research point to consciousness reaching beyond the brain, altering causation itself in ways physics hasn't accounted for?
- Filed under
- Tech
- Type
- Background entry
- Sources
- 11
Image: tandfonline.com
Summary
The strongest pro-psi case is that controlled experiments and meta-analyses have produced results that proponents consider difficult to explain through sensory leakage, chance, or ordinary methodological error. Some researchers therefore argue that psi deserves serious scientific attention and may bear on whether mind extends beyond the brain. They also acknowledge that the nature and mechanism of any effect remain unknown.
- A meta-analysis of 90 anticipation experiments from 33 laboratories reported an overall result exceeding six standard deviations, which its authors interpreted as evidence for anomalous anticipation.
- A review of ganzfeld research argued that replication rates and effect sizes warranted bringing psi findings to the wider psychological community.
- One review concluded that sensory cues, machine bias, cheating, and experimenter error could not reasonably explain the significant results it examined.
Deeper Insight
The skeptical position holds that striking statistical findings are insufficient when effects are difficult to reproduce, shrink with stronger or larger studies, or depend on flexible analyses and publication practices. Critics use Bem’s work, ganzfeld studies, and large replication efforts to argue that psi claims have not met the evidential standards expected for a new phenomenon. They also place the dispute within psychology’s broader replicability crisis.
- Critics argue that most psi findings are false or unstable because of replication problems, decline effects, and questionable research practices.
- A skeptical review argues that parapsychological claims conflict with established scientific expectations and criticizes the evidential basis of the field.
- A Bayesian critique argues that apparently strong statistical results from precognition studies do not by themselves overcome prior doubts and methodological concerns.
Sources · 11
Featured · Primary source · pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False - PMC - NIH
# Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus Frontiers in Psychology. Published: 2020-09-18. 40 citations. ## Authors - Thomas Rabeyron (InterPsy): h-index 19; 1,413 citations; corresponding author ## Topics - Paranormal Experie
Read sourceAnalysis · frontiersin.org
Frontiers | Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus
Frontiers | Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus Front. Psychol., 18 September 2020 # Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus - T R Thomas Rabeyron
Read sourceAnalysis · skepticalinquirer.org
Why Parapsychological Claims Cannot Be True | Skeptical Inquirer
Why Parapsychological Claims Cannot Be True | Skeptical Inquirer ## Why Parapsychological Claims Cannot Be True ### Arthur S. Reber, James E. Alcock From: Volume 43, No. 4 July / August 2019 The July-August 2018 issue of American Psychologist contained an article titled “The Experimental Evidence fo
Read source