Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: reply to Hyman (2010).
Psychol Bull 2010; 136(4):491-4PB

Abstract

In our article (Storm, Tressoldi, & Di Risio, 2010), we claimed that the ganzfeld experimental design has proved to be consistent and reliable. However, Hyman (2010) argues that the overall evidence for psi is, in fact, contradictory and elusive. We present a case for psi research that undermines Hyman's argument. First, we give examples from parapsychologists who do not outrightly dismiss psi, despite appearances, but actually support it. Second, we claim that Hyman does not tell the full story about the ganzfeld meta-analytic findings and thus presents a one-sided account. Third, we argue that our meta-analysis has followed standard procedures, that we have not broken any rules but have found a communications anomaly, often referred to as psi. Though we may be in agreement that the evidence is largely statistical, the evidence suggests that concealed targets are actually identified rather than guessed. We argue that further research is necessary.

Authors+Show Affiliations

School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. lance.storm@adelaide.edu.auNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comment
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

20565166

Citation

Storm, Lance, et al. "A Meta-analysis With Nothing to Hide: Reply to Hyman (2010)." Psychological Bulletin, vol. 136, no. 4, 2010, pp. 491-4.
Storm L, Tressoldi PE, Risio LD. A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: reply to Hyman (2010). Psychol Bull. 2010;136(4):491-4.
Storm, L., Tressoldi, P. E., & Risio, L. D. (2010). A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: reply to Hyman (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), pp. 491-4. doi:10.1037/a0019840.
Storm L, Tressoldi PE, Risio LD. A Meta-analysis With Nothing to Hide: Reply to Hyman (2010). Psychol Bull. 2010;136(4):491-4. PubMed PMID: 20565166.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: reply to Hyman (2010). AU - Storm,Lance, AU - Tressoldi,Patrizio E, AU - Risio,Lorenzo Di, PY - 2010/6/23/entrez PY - 2010/6/23/pubmed PY - 2011/2/24/medline SP - 491 EP - 4 JF - Psychological bulletin JO - Psychol Bull VL - 136 IS - 4 N2 - In our article (Storm, Tressoldi, & Di Risio, 2010), we claimed that the ganzfeld experimental design has proved to be consistent and reliable. However, Hyman (2010) argues that the overall evidence for psi is, in fact, contradictory and elusive. We present a case for psi research that undermines Hyman's argument. First, we give examples from parapsychologists who do not outrightly dismiss psi, despite appearances, but actually support it. Second, we claim that Hyman does not tell the full story about the ganzfeld meta-analytic findings and thus presents a one-sided account. Third, we argue that our meta-analysis has followed standard procedures, that we have not broken any rules but have found a communications anomaly, often referred to as psi. Though we may be in agreement that the evidence is largely statistical, the evidence suggests that concealed targets are actually identified rather than guessed. We argue that further research is necessary. SN - 1939-1455 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/20565166/A_meta_analysis_with_nothing_to_hide:_reply_to_Hyman__2010__ L2 - http://content.apa.org/journals/bul/136/4/491 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -