A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy

Abstract

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.

Stage 2 Registered Report: Anomalous perception in a Ganzfeld condition - A meta-analysis of more than 40 years investigation

“…A second major meta-analysis on a set of 'autoganzfeld' studies was performed by Bem & Honorton (1994). These studies followed the guidelines laid down by Hyman & Honorton (1986). Moreover the autoganzfeld procedure avoids methodological flaws by using a computer-controlled target randomization, selection, and judging technique.…”

Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus

“…And even if the researcher manages to get significant results at every step – as done by Bem (2011) for many years 10 –, there will always be new demands from the mainstream community: more control of the experimental setting, more experiments, more labs, more statistical tools, etc., ( Wagenmakers et al, 2015 ) 11 . Even when proponents manage to agree a clear protocol with skeptics, and then obtain significant results, which has been the case with the Ganzfeld ( Hyman and Honorton, 1986 ; Bem and Honorton, 1994 ), it is never enough. The underlying problem is that even if a significant effect is found at each step, there is no way to conclude anything about the nature of the effect and consequently no way to produce scientific knowledge about the source of psi ( Broughton, 1979 ; Palmer, 1997 ): is it from the participants?…”

Eight Decades of Psi Research: Highlights in the Journal of Parapsychology

“…Also important were papers whose two authors, one a "proponent" of the field (Honorton, 1985), and the other a critic (Hyman, 1985) defended and criticized ganzfeld ESP research. The interaction of these two individuals produced a joint article that, at the time, was considered to have provided a constructive opportunity for dialog and a possible guide for further research collaborations (Hyman & Honorton, 1986). Unfortunately, these efforts, and later special issues of the JP devoted to discussing ganzfeld work (December, 1986, andDecember, 1999), did not significantly bring more acceptance of the research work.…”