联合公报:甘茨菲尔德之争

Q2 Psychology
R. Hyman, C. Honorton
{"title":"联合公报:甘茨菲尔德之争","authors":"R. Hyman, C. Honorton","doi":"10.30891/JOPAR.2018S.01.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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 empha-sized 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 consti-tutes 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. written the other preparing a rejoinder when we each other at the 1986 meetings the Parapsychological Association. round of exchanges with this joint communiqué a discussion a luncheon meeting. 2, 3 During the discussion we realized that each of us not fully and accurately understood the other’s position on some of the major issues dividing us. In addition, much of our disagreement at this stage involves technicalities and differences of opinion about the proper ways to assign and rate studies on specific attributes. To put emphasis on these details detracts from the broader and more important propositions, on which we find ourselves in agreement.","PeriodicalId":39641,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Parapsychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy\",\"authors\":\"R. Hyman, C. Honorton\",\"doi\":\"10.30891/JOPAR.2018S.01.09\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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 empha-sized 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 consti-tutes 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. written the other preparing a rejoinder when we each other at the 1986 meetings the Parapsychological Association. round of exchanges with this joint communiqué a discussion a luncheon meeting. 2, 3 During the discussion we realized that each of us not fully and accurately understood the other’s position on some of the major issues dividing us. In addition, much of our disagreement at this stage involves technicalities and differences of opinion about the proper ways to assign and rate studies on specific attributes. To put emphasis on these details detracts from the broader and more important propositions, on which we find ourselves in agreement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Parapsychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Parapsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30891/JOPAR.2018S.01.09\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Parapsychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30891/JOPAR.2018S.01.09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

他说:“我们决定不继续就psi甘兹菲尔德实验进行新一轮辩论,而是共同发表共同声明。奥诺顿和海曼的辩论强调了我们立场上的差异,其中许多本质上是技术性的。但在最近的一次讨论中,我们意识到我们在许多关于超心理学研究的问题上有着相似的观点。因此,这份公报强调了这些共识。我们同意,在这个数据库中有一个整体显著的影响,不能通过选择性报告或多重分析来合理地解释。对于这种效应在多大程度上构成psi的证据,我们仍然存在分歧,但我们一致认为,最终的裁决等待着未来更广泛的研究人员根据更严格的标准进行的实验的结果。我们就如何进行和报告这类实验提出建议。具体的建议是关于随机化,判断和反馈程序,多重分析和统计,文献,以及我们相信meta分析将在研究质量评估和调节变量评估中发挥越来越大的作用。我们的结论是,psi研究人员及其批评者有许多共同目标,我们希望我们的联合公报将鼓励未来的合作,以进一步实现这些目标。当我们在1986年的超心理学协会会议上见面时,我写信给另一个人,准备反驳。与本联合公报的一轮交流、一次讨论、一次午餐会。在讨论中,我们认识到,在一些使我们产生分歧的重大问题上,我们双方都没有完全准确地理解对方的立场。此外,我们在这个阶段的许多分歧涉及技术细节和对特定属性的研究分配和评级的正确方法的意见分歧。强调这些细节会减损我们一致同意的更广泛和更重要的主张。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy
: 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 empha-sized 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 consti-tutes 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. written the other preparing a rejoinder when we each other at the 1986 meetings the Parapsychological Association. round of exchanges with this joint communiqué a discussion a luncheon meeting. 2, 3 During the discussion we realized that each of us not fully and accurately understood the other’s position on some of the major issues dividing us. In addition, much of our disagreement at this stage involves technicalities and differences of opinion about the proper ways to assign and rate studies on specific attributes. To put emphasis on these details detracts from the broader and more important propositions, on which we find ourselves in agreement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Parapsychology Psychology-Psychology (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: The Journal of Parapsychology is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December by the Parapsychology Press, a subsidiary of the Foundation for Research on the Nature of Man. The Journal is devoted mainly to original reports of experimental research in parapsychology. It also publishes research reviews, theoretical and methodological articles that are closely linked to the empirical findings in the field, book reviews, news, comments, letters and abstracts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信