{"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}
: 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.
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.