3 ms·

> scientifically verified That's a bit of a strong statement, but not quite untrue. There was enough legitimate interest that there was funded parapsychology

> scientifically verified That's a bit of a strong statement, but not quite untrue. There was enough legitimate interest that there was funded parapsychology research at places like SRI into the eighties that was at least serious in intent if not in execution or outcome. I just checked and the academic Journal of Parapsychology is still published, and the AAAS has gracefully not kicked the Parapyschological Association out of affiliation yet. Yeah, the big debunking bang never happened, but the research always had a particular smell about it: smaller and smaller effects every year with greater and greater statistical significance. Preregistration helps with the optional stopping problem, but it doesn't completely solve it, and meta-analysis actively hurts. From my brief time reading the parapsychological literature and its critics for fun, I still look at any meta-analysis with extreme skepticism.

jrochkind1 4y ago
Can you say or link to more about the metaanalysis problem? I haven't heard this before, and am not putting together the pieces myself. One of the results of the lack of the "big debunking bang" is that nobody seems to have learned from it, and the identical thing could happen again, as someone else pointed out in this thread, with Daryl Bem more recently, who is probably the "ESP guy" the OP actually meant (I hadn't heard of him before). (I think both Bem and Rhine were not intentionally fraudulent, but well-intentioned... the lessons of how good intentions can lead to accidental statistical manipulation were not learned, and probably still happen all over, not just in disrepuptable areas like ESP) [I can't seem to find it now, but I recall reading something from someone writing in the 30s, someone who is still considered a reputable scientist today, on the lines of "I didn't want to believe in esp, but I am forced to recognize it scientifically on the strength of Rhine's research." But I can't recall who!]
- buescher 4y ago
  I'm a bit out on a limb there that I haven't climbed on in years. Look at the ganzfeld debate from the mid-eighties, early nineties. On the acceptance of Rhine's results,I recall seeing something similar recently, possibly here on HN, but I don't recall details either.

jrochkind1 4y ago

Can you say or link to more about the metaanalysis problem? I haven't heard this before, and am not putting together the pieces myself. One of the results of the lack of the "big debunking bang" is that nobody seems to have learned from it, and the identical thing could happen again, as someone else pointed out in this thread, with Daryl Bem more recently, who is probably the "ESP guy" the OP actually meant (I hadn't heard of him before). (I think both Bem and Rhine were not intentionally fraudulent, but well-intentioned... the lessons of how good intentions can lead to accidental statistical manipulation were not learned, and probably still happen all over, not just in disrepuptable areas like ESP) [I can't seem to find it now, but I recall reading something from someone writing in the 30s, someone who is still considered a reputable scientist today, on the lines of "I didn't want to believe in esp, but I am forced to recognize it scientifically on the strength of Rhine's research." But I can't recall who!]

buescher 4y ago
I'm a bit out on a limb there that I haven't climbed on in years. Look at the ganzfeld debate from the mid-eighties, early nineties. On the acceptance of Rhine's results,I recall seeing something similar recently, possibly here on HN, but I don't recall details either.