A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: reply to Hyman (2010).
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.
Storm
Lance
L
School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. lance.storm@adelaide.edu.au
Tressoldi
Patrizio E
PE
Risio
Lorenzo Di
LD
D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D010268:Parapsychology / Q000379:methods*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design