Searching for the impossible: Parapsychology’s elusive quest.

В поисках невозможного: неуловимая попытка парапсихологии
Arthur S. Reber, James E. Alcock
2019-06-13

Type I errorsmethodological critiqueparapsychologypsi phenomenareplicability crisis
Recently, American Psychologist published a review of the evidence for parapsychology that supported the general claims of psi (the umbrella term often used for anomalous or paranormal phenomena). We present an opposing perspective and a broad-based critique of the entire parapsychology enterprise. Our position is straightforward. Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true. The effects reported can have no ontological status; the data have no existential value. We examine a variety of reasons for this conclusion based on well-understood scientific principles. In the classic English adynaton, pigs cannot fly. Hence, data that suggest that they can are necessarily flawed and result from weak methodology or improper data analyses or are Type I errors. So it must be with psi effects. What we find particularly intriguing is that, despite the existential impossibility of psi phenomena and the nearly 150 years of efforts during which there has been, literally, no progress, there are still scientists who continue to embrace the pursuit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
1
Despite nearly 150 years of research with no progress, some scientists continue to pursue parapsychology, which the authors find intriguing.
2
Reported psi effects are interpreted as necessarily flawed due to weak methodology, improper data analyses, or Type I errors.
3
The authors argue that claims made by parapsychologists about psi phenomena cannot be true and have no ontological status.
4
The critique is grounded in well-understood scientific principles and likens psi claims to impossible phenomena (adynaton) such as pigs flying.

Parapsychology (the scientific enterprise studying psi/anomalous paranormal phenomena)

The validity and ontological status of reported psi effects and the methodological and analytical flaws leading to false-positive (Type I) findings

Publication Details
Publication Date
2019-06-13
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Arthur S. Reber
James E. Alcock
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%