|
Originally published in:
The Journal of the American Society for Psychical
Research
Volume 85, April 1991, pp. 193-203.
The Elusive Agenda: Dissuading as Debunking in
Ray Hyman’s The Elusive Quarry
GEORGE P. HANSEN
ABSTRACT: Ray Hyman has been a prominent rhetorical critic of parapsychology
for more than a decade. He is a member of the Executive Council of the
Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
and has served as a consultant to various government bodies. His book,
The
Elusive Quarry, reprints nearly all of his major papers on the paranormal.
Hyman plays two roles as critic. One role is that of scientific, technical
critic; the other is that of prosecutor trying to deny the scientific legitimacy
of parapsychology. In his role as technical critic, Hyman has provided
useful insights, but he also has made serious technical errors. As a rhetorical
critic, Hyman occasionally acknowledges that a number of research programs
have produced results that have not been explained within current scientific
frameworks. He grants the existence of anomalies, but much of his writing
is spent advocating that other scientists need not consider these anomalies.
Hyman’s approach and strategies are discussed herein.
Ray Hyman can be considered the preeminent, outside critic
of parapsychology for more than a decade; as such, his recent book (Hyman,
1989), The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research,
requires our detailed attention. In this article I will provide some background
information on the author, briefly outline the book, and then discuss the
roles that Hyman plays as critic. The discussion will be illustrated with
writings from the book and other sources.
Hyman is a professor of psychology at the University of
Oregon. He serves on the Executive Council of CSICOP (Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and chairs its subcommittee
on parapsychology. Hyman has been a professional magician, has published
in conjuring magazines, and is well known in that field as well. In fact,
his picture appeared on the cover of the October 1986 issue of the Linking
Ring, probably the magic magazine with the largest circulation in the
world. He also served as chair of the parapsychology subcommittee of the
National Research Council (NRC) study for the U.S. Army on enhancing human
performance (Druckman & Swets, 1988; for a response, see Palmer, Honorton,
& Utts, 1989).
It is clear that Hyman has had an enduring interest in
psychic research. His first published critique on parapsychology was a
review of Soal and Bateman’s Modern Experiments in Telepathy that
appeared in 1957 (reprinted in The Elusive Quarry). That review
displays a sophisticated grasp of the technical and philosophical issues
of the field. Hyman must have been following parapsychology closely. During
this early period, he also collaborated with anthropologist Evon Vogt in
research on dowsing. With the founding of CSICOP in the mid-1970s, Hyman
publicly reemerged as a critic. Although he appears to have published little
in the interim, his
|
194 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
interest must have been known because he was called on by the Department
of Defense to help evaluate the Stanford Research Institute psi experiments
in the early 1970s. In recent years, a major portion of his professional
writings has been devoted to criticizing parapsychology.
The Elusive Quarry is a compilation of nearly all
Hyman’s major published articles on parapsychology. It is arranged
in four parts, each with a brief introduction. The first section is the
most technical, and it includes papers reprinted from the Journal of
Parapsychology, Proceedings of the IEEE, and Experientia.
His writings on the Ganzfeld controversy are included, as are some writings
on eminent historical scientists involved in psychic research. Several
book reviews are reprinted. There is considerable overlap among the articles.
The second part focuses more heavily on eminent historical
scientists’ involvement in psychical research, specifically, Hare, Crookes,
Wallace, and Zöllner. Hyman suggests that these scientists did not
investigate the phenomena effectively. This section is tiresomely repetitious.
The third part is titled “Psychic Phenomena” and
covers dowsing,1 occult healing, remote viewing, and a few other
topics. The fourth section is the shortest and discusses psychology of
belief, cold reading, and includes an article entitled “Proper Criticism,”
which was composed for local skeptics’ groups.
In order to fully appreciate Hyman as a critic, one must
recognize two separate aspects. One role is that of the scientific, technical
critic (i.e., on methodology and statistics); the other is that of a prosecutor
arguing the case against the scientific legitimacy of parapsychology. The
roles are so subtly blended that even the careful reader may miss the distinction.
I will address each aspect in a separate section in order to clarify the
difference.
HYMAN AS TECHNICAL CRITIC
At this point a few words might be said about the distinction
between “outside” and “inside” critics. These can be distinguished by the
periodicals in which they primarily present their arguments. The inside
critics publish their work in the refereed parapsychology journals and
in books such as the Advances in Parapsychological Research series.
Insiders would include Charles Akers, Irvin Child, J. E. Kennedy, Betty
Markwick, John Palmer, Rex Stanford, and Douglas Stokes, among others.
The outside critics typically publish in more popular, unrefereed forums.
Outsiders include James Alcock, Martin Gardner, Edward Girden, C. E. M.
Hansel, Ray Hyman, David Marks, and James Randi. At one time, Christopher
Scott might have been designated an insider, but in recent years he could
be classified as an outsider. Of those persons who are identified as outside
critics of the field,
1 As I have pointed out elsewhere (Hansen,
1982), Vogt and Hyman ignored the experimental work supporting dowsing,
even though Hyman claims that they covered “just about every aspect of
the subject” (Hyman, 1989, p. 321).
|
Book Review Articles: The Elusive Agenda
195
Hyman is easily one of the most scientifically competent. He is well
versed in parapsychology’s current literature as well as its history. In
his overview of critics of parapsychology, Child (1987) wrote: “Hyman has
much more to contribute than fellow critics who share his position of extreme
doubt about the possibility of psi phenomena but have apparently not read
the research” (p. 206). The only other outside critic in Hyman’s class
might be Christopher Scott;2 no other CSICOP
members come close to the technical competence of these two. Of course,
a number of researchers inside the field are superior to Hyman and Scott
and have made more incisive criticisms.
Hyman’s major technical contributions involve free-response
ESP methodology and statistical tests. His critique of the Ganzfeld work
is probably the best known (it is reprinted in The Elusive Quarry
as the first major chapter). In his review, he pointed out statistical
errors, raised security issues, and discussed randomization. Honorton (1985)
produced a detailed rebuttal, and the exchange generated commentaries,
which were printed in the December 1986 issue of the Journal of Parapsychology.
Honorton and Hyman collaborated on a joint communique (also reprinted in
The
Elusive Quarry), which listed reporting and procedural guidelines for
future Ganzfeld research.
In 1977 Hyman authored two articles for The Humanist
(reprinted in the book) in which he described subtle problems of statistical
independence in remote-viewing experiments (e.g., with closed-deck judging
procedures, subjects might systematically avoid responding with characteristics
of earlier targets when feedback has been given in earlier trials). A number
of his subsequent articles elaborated on this topic and are the clearest
explications of the issues available. Even though Hyman identified the
problems over 10 years ago, I have encountered a number of major researchers
in the field who, even recently, have failed to grasp the thrust of his
points. His 1977 articles also pointed out the problems of not using duplicate
target sets for sending and judging in Ganzfeld work (now a typical procedure
because of his insight).
Some of the flaws detected by Hyman have only
trivial consequences. Honorton convincingly demonstrated that multiple
analysis could not account for the Ganzfeld result (which Hyman now admits).
Christopher Scott (1986) declared Honorton the winner of the debate. Even
fellow critic David Marks (1988) seems to have objected to one of Hyman’s
“flaws” in remote-viewing research.3 Hyman’s comments on random
number generator (RNG) research are
2 Although Scott’s comments are usually to
the mark on technical issues, it perhaps should be explained to readers
that Scott has candidly admitted how embittered he has become regarding
the field (see Blackmore, 1989, p. 260). As a result, some of his writings
contain highly emotional polemic.
3 In The Elusive Quarry (pp. 149-150)
credit to Marks is omitted, giving the impression that the statement was
Hyman’s.
|
196 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
not as extensive. He has suggested that long control runs might obscure
local nonrandomness in the output of a generator. This has not been shown
to be a problem in psi research, and in any event the Kolmogorov-Smimov
test has been used to check generator operation (e.g., Psychophysical Research
Laboratories, 1985). This test is specifically geared to check both local
and global nonrandomness. Hyman also reprints his criticisms of C. E. M.
Hansel’s attack on Helmut Schmidt’s work. He found Hansel’s complaints
off the mark.4
Some of Hyman’s pointed criticisms have not had the swift
impact on research procedure that they warranted. Hyman himself is partly
to blame for this. Although his technical criticisms are usually direct
and appropriate, he has chosen to publish many of them in popular, unrefereed
periodicals (even two in a quasi-religious magazine). These periodicals
have frequently carried exceptionally poor-quality critical articles with
glaring technical errors intermixed with emotional diatribe. As a result,
many scientific researchers do not find it worthwhile wading through all
the drivel to find the useful nuggets (though Hyman’s own articles contain
little overt emotional polemic).
Despite his contributions to the understanding of methodological
issues, Hyman’s work is not flawless. He has made a number of mistakes
on technical matters, some quite serious. This is ironic because he has
incessantly complained about the technical errors of others, and he has
billed himself as having a special interest in “human error, especially
‘mistakes’ made by highly competent individuals.”5
Examples can be found in the several versions
of Hyman’s Ganzfeld criticism. Honorton (1985) has pointed out that Hyman’s
initial critique, presented at the 1982 Parapsychological Association (PA)
convention, contained numerous errors in ascribing flaws to studies. Hyman
made changes in it in November of that year, but errors still remained.
In his first presentation, Hyman claimed an almost perfect correlation
between degree of success and number of flaws in a study. He has been forced
to dramatically retreat from that claim; in fact, he now admits that he
cannot “support any firm conclusion about the relationship between flaws
and study outcome” (Hyman, 1989, p. 65). In the published version of his
critique, which appeared in 1985, he reported a chi-square statistic calculated
in order to find evidence for biased reporting. However, as pointed out
by Honorton (1985, p. 63), not only was his calculation incorrect, but
he seriously violated the underlying required assumptions of the test.
Statistician Jessica Utts (1986) has noted other serious errors with his
interpretation of that statistic. Hyman’s critique was reprinted in The
Elusive Quarry, but he neglected to correct his errors and did not
inform his readers of the mistakes.
4 It is amusing to note that in his recent
book, Hansel (1989) criticizes Ganzfeld research but does not mention Hyman.
Hyman is not even listed in the index!
5 In a biographical sketch in Proceedings
of the IEEE. 1986, 74, 886.
|
Book Review Articles: The Elusive Agenda
197
Also in his Ganzfeld critique, Hyman conducted a factor
analysis in order to study the effect of flaws. Saunders (1985) discovered
important errors in Hyman’s analysis and demonstrated that Hyman’s findings
were meaningless. In the introduction to the first section of the book,
Hyman complained about Saunders’ paper, but he gave no specific points
of rebuttal. I wrote to Hyman requesting details; he did not reply. In
any event, Harvard psychologist Robert Rosenthal performed several similar
analyses that failed to support Hyman’s conclusions (Harris & Rosenthal,
1988, see postscript of document).
One of Hyman’s reprinted papers was a response to Scott
Rogo in a debate published in The Humanist. In discussing the early
statistical controversies in the card guessing experiments, he wrote: “I
don’t know . . . what the Institute of Mathematical Statistics is” (Hyman,
1989, p. 166). This should be an embarrassing statement for someone who
publicly described himself as “primarily a statistician” at the 1982 PA
convention. The Institute of Mathematical Statistics has been in existence
since 1935, has approximately 4,000 members, and publishes several scholarly
statistical journals.
I don’t cite all these mistakes in order to disparage Hyman’s
competence as a critic, for he is truly quite capable. I only mention them
to illustrate that all scientific work (even criticism) has the potential
for flaws. He has made such statements as “the parapsychological community
must be concerned to discover that their best experiments still fall far
short of the methodological adequacy they themselves would profess” (Hyman,
1989, p. 157). A similar statement might be made with regard to the critics.
Hyman apparently has reported only one foray into empirical psi
research,6 and in that, his involvement seems to have been minimal.
The work was almost totally conducted by James McClenon (the paper is included
in The Elusive Quarry). This gives Hyman a distinct advantage in
the rhetorical arena. Sociologists Pinch and Collins (1984), in their paper
specifically addressing CSICOP, pointed out that CSICOP’s tactics
can only be used in complete safety by organizations
that do not engage in controversial science themselves. Only by avoiding
having to face up to problems of doing controversial science, and by avoiding
the changed consciousness concerning scientific method which accompanies
such engagement, can an attack from the canonical model be sustained without
difficulty. (p. 539)
In fact, they specifically suggested that the critics not engage in empirical
research if they were to be effective in promoting their agenda. They pointed
out that various research findings and interpretations in controversial
science conflict, and a large component of establishing scientific
6 That remote-viewing study “fall[s] short
of scientific acceptability” under Hyman’s (1989, p. 381) own criteria
because it was not published in a refereed journal.
|
198 Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research
knowledge involves human negotiation and not just “consulting the facts.”
HYMAN AS PROSECUTOR
The idealistic view of the scientist is that of one who
coolly examines the facts and theories and then dispassionately judges
the evidence. When new evidence refutes one’s earlier position, the scientist
readily admits the mistake. This idealistic view has been promoted in the
popular media by CSICOP members. In fact, the back cover of the Skeptical
Inquirer proclaims that CSICOP encourages “research by objective and
impartial inquiry” and “does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent
to inquiry.” By effectively selling this claim to the public, they enhance
their own credibility as scientists. This grants power to further advance
their own agenda. When one is able to project the image of “dispassionate
scientist” while in reality playing the role of prosecutor, the effectiveness
of the prosecution is much enhanced.
The prosecutorial aspect can best be seen by comparing
positions presented in scientific arenas contrasted with those in popular
forums. In the scientific literature, it is typical practice to allow those
criticized to respond. The readership is then in a position to decide just
who made the stronger case. In books and popular media, those attacked
have little or no chance for rebuttal. The readers see only one side of
a case. An enlightening example appears in Science and the Paranormal,
an anthology edited by Abell and Singer. Hyman (1981) contributed a chapter
entitled “Scientists and Psychics” (an earlier, previously unpublished
version is printed in The Elusive Quarry). In that chapter, Hyman
clearly and dispassionately describes problems scientists might encounter
when testing psychics. His presentation is moderate and would appear to
many readers as eminently fair and balanced. In the very last paragraph
of the chapter, Hyman states:
I have no quarrel with any scientist who wants
to investigate the claims of an alleged psychic. Indeed, the willingness
of such men to risk their reputation and to face ridicule is probably a
good thing for the growth of science in the long run. What seems to be
lacking is a recognition on the part of such scientists of what it will
take to put such an investigation onto a scientific footing. Standardized
procedures, instrumentation, variables, controls, concepts, data analyses,
and other necessities of scientific inquiry will have to be developed,
tested, debugged, and validated from scratch. This will not be easy and
probably cannot be done by one or two men working alone. (Hyman, 1981,
pp. 140-141)
A footnote at the beginning of that essay reported that the
writing was supported by the National Science Foundation. Thus, to the
naive reader, the above passage would have high credibility. The reader
unfamiliar with parapsychology would not realize that it was completely
untrue. No men-
|
Book Review Articles: The Elusive Agenda
199
tion was made that ongoing, controlled, experimental research had been
underway since the 1930s. The article cited 43 references; none were to
the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research or the
Journal
of Parapsychology. There was only one citation to the Journal of
the Society for Psychical Research, and that was a letter. This is
a most effective strategy for dissuading the interested reader from pursuing
information on long-term, scientific research on psychic phenomena. The
clear implication is that nothing like that exists.
One of the credibility-building themes that recurs in a
number of Hyman’s major articles is that psychic claims have been unfairly
attacked in the past. In fact, a whole dialogue on this issue appeared
in Zetetic Scholar (ZS) (reprinted in The Elusive Quarry).
The theme can be seen in at least four of the major articles in this book.
Such a ploy would give the reader a sense of confidence that Hyman’s criticisms,
at least, will be fair. It takes a sophisticated reader to see through
the strategem. In the ZS dialogue, historian of science Seymour
Mauskopf noted:
Hyman calls for a “more appropriate and rational”
response from the scientific community to deviant or “pathological” scientific
claims than the usual crude, ill-supported ad hominem accusations and innuendos.
But he does so not in the interest of really open-minded discussion of
unsettling assertions but rather the more effectively to lay them to rest:
to disarm the recalcitrant deviant, to show him the error of his folly,
and to admonish the naive who might be similarly tempted to go astray.
Whatever else “more appropriate and rational” might mean, the phrase, as
used in this context, clearly means “prejudged” response. (Mauskopf, 1980,
p. 58)
Both Stephen Braude (1980) and Mauskopf (1980) describe aspects from Hyman’s
article that illustrate his preformed opinion.
In some instances, Hyman has acknowledged that several
long-term research programs have produced results for which no normal,
reasonable explanation has been given. This was admitted for modern day
research as well as for studies conducted over 100 years ago. Hyman has
stated: “It is true that no one who has studied the reports of seances
by Home or Crookes’s accounts of his tests on this medium has come up with
plausible ways he could have cheated” (Hyman, 1989, p. 286). Hyman thus
admits that the Home mediumship was a true enigma for which no satisfactory
scientific explanation has been given.
Speaking of the best experiments of modern research (primarily
Ganzfeld and RNG work), Hyman has acknowledged that the critics have not
“demonstrated a plausible alternative” (1989, p. 157). He admits that neither
he nor other critics have provided a conventional explanation for the results.
Yet he insists that other scientists need not pay attention. Indeed, he
has admitted that he attempts to “justify withholding any attention to
the claims for the paranormal on the part of orthodox science” (Hyman,
1989, p. 206). This is a direct, candid admission of his agenda. In order
to rationalize his position, Hyman frequently goes on at great
|
200 Journal of the
American Society for Psychical Research
length to say that the psychic researchers need fully repeatable experiments,
lawful relationships, etc. before they should receive the attention of
science. Until that time, he claims, there is no explanation needed. In
one long epistle on the topic, he asserts that there must be a “minimal
set of criteria for deciding if an anomalous result justifies further consideration
and attempts at explanation” (Hyman, 1981, p. 137). He defines the minimal
criteria as follows:
In addition to a community of shared
concerns and paradigms with respect to a given problem, the observations
must be made with standardized and proven procedures, the observers and
their instruments must be reliable, the data must be reported according
to conventional categories and attributes, and the settings and tasks must
be ones in widespread use or ones that have gone through preliminary checks
and standardization. In addition, especially if the reported results are
anomalous or at variance with current theories and presuppositions, they
must be systematically studied under a wide variety of conditions, and
they should be repeatable by investigators in independent laboratories.
(Hyman, 1981, p. 136)
Child (1987) commented:
This is a very fine statement of what might be
theoretically desirable. In practice, it seems to offer a recipe for guaranteeing
that anomalies will never be studied. For it prescribes that no one in
the scientific world should pursue the study of an anomaly until a large
number of scientists have already pursued it at great expense. The preliminary
work required by this statement of principles might well require many times
the budget of all the existing parapsychology laboratories and many times
the number of trained scientists ever to have worked on the problem of
psi. But none of these scientists should start working on the problem until
after the large-scale preliminary work has been completed. This seems to
be a Catch-22 statement of principles. (p. 223)
Many reported findings on biological influences
of electromagnetic radiation would not meet Hyman’s criteria as deserving
further study! Numerous other instances of leading-edge science could be
cited as well. Nevertheless, the strategy of long-winded rationalizations
is effective. It obscures the point that psi effects have been consistently
found in long-term research programs but have not yet been explained.
Hyman’s perceived position as a “responsible critic” of
parapsychology has placed him in a position of some influence. He was appointed
to the National Research Council committee on enhancing human performance
for the U.S. Army. He served as chair of the parapsychology subcommittee,
which concluded that there was “no scientific justification from research
conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological
phenomena” (Druckman & Swets, 1988, p. 22). This NRC report has been
widely read by people in a position to fund psi research. Rather surprisingly,
not long before his appointment, Hyman cosigned a fund-raising letter for
CSICOP (March 23, 1985) that stated:
|
Book Review Articles: The Elusive Agenda
201
“Belief in paranormal phenomena is still growing, and the dangers to
our society are real ... in these days of government budget-cutting the
Defense Department may be spending millions of tax dollars on developing
‘psychic arms’ . . . Please help us in this battle against the irrational.
Your contribution, in any amount, will help us grow and be better able
to combat the flood of belief in the paranormal.” This strikingly illustrates
his prejudgment. In the section on parapsychology of the NRC report, there
is no mention whatever of the conclusions of the NRC-commissioned work
by Robert Rosenthal; that work was not even cited. Rosenthal’s findings
diametrically contradicted the opinion of Hyman’s subcommittee; this was
a clear cover-up. Even after all of this, in his 1988 Experientia
article, Hyman claims to give parapsychology a “fair and unbiased appraisal”
(in Hyman, 1989, p. 141)! Writing of some of Hyman’s earlier work, philosopher
Stephen Braude presciently and pungently stated: “Hyman professes one set
of attitudes and beliefs, and betrays another. One’s dagger may be brandished
openly or concealed under one’s cloak. Real malevolence may be served either
way” (1980, p. 43).
HYMAN AS PSYCHOLOGIST
In his introduction to the section “Psychic Phenomena,”
Hyman calls for an attempt to understand the psychology of “believers.”
He specifically implies that James McClenon’s view that believers and skeptics
look at psi from different paradigms is not altogether rational. In later
chapters he goes on to condescendingly describe the errors of the ways
of the “believers.” He provides no similar analysis to enlighten us on
the psychology of skeptics. One might speculate that, in his own case,
there may be a degree of cognitive dissonance because he admits that there
has been no satisfactory explanation of the best psi research results.
Or maybe he simply views himself as serving a constituency, an attorney
arguing the best case for the prosecution. Or perhaps he responds to social
pressure within CSICOP. For a time he may have been a rather low-status
character within CSICOP because he was “too easy” on the “believers.” Hyman
has chosen to speculate on the psychology of his opponents, although he
should be in a better position to provide insight into the psychology of
skepticism.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, if one has carefully followed Hyman’s attack
on scientific parapsychology in the last 15 years, one will find little
that is new in The Elusive Quarry. As such the book will be of minimal
value. It is simply another of Prometheus Books’ slap-dash productions
of skeptical books. They didn’t even care enough to include an index. On
the other hand, if one is new to the psi controversy, this is probably
the second most impor-
|
202 Journal of the American
Society for Psychical Research
tant skeptic’s book of recent years (the first being Kurtz’s [1985]
edited volume, A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology). Hyman’s
work more consistently is of a better intellectual quality than that of
most of Kurtz’s contributors. Also, his articles on free-response ESP methodology
are required reading for anyone contemplating work in that area.
Over a period of decades, Hyman has expended considerable effort
in trying to explain away the results of parapsychology. He admits that
this endeavor has been unsuccessful. His specifically stated tactic now
is to dissuade the scientific community from giving serious attention to
the field. The dust jacket of the book acknowledges that one of Hyman’s
major themes is that “the best way to proceed in the hunt for the ‘elusive
quarry’ of psi is to improve the communication between parapsychologists
and their critics.” This appears to be yet another credibility-building
tactic of the debunker. Research scientists have little to gain in trying
to communicate with polemicists who engage in no research themselves and
who have already decided the issue. As pointed out by Richard Feynman in
his (unpublished) banquet address at the 1984 PA convention, the field
has good internal critics and does not need outsiders to do that job.
REFERENCES
BLACKMORE, S. (1989). What do we really think?: A survey of parapsychologists
and sceptics. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 55,
251-262.
BRAUDE, S. (1980). Comments by Stephen Braude. Zetetic Scholar,
No. 6, 42-43.
CHILD, I. L. (1987). Criticism in experimental parapsychology, 1975-1985.
In S. Krippner (Ed.), Advances in Parapsychological Research 5 (pp.
190-224). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
DRUCKMAN, D., & SWETS, J. A. (Eds.). (1988). Enhancing Human
Performance: Issues, Theories, Techniques. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
HANSEL, C. E. M. (1989). The Search for Psychic Power: ESP &
Parapsychology Revisited. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
HANSEN, G. P. (1982). Dowsing: A review of experimental research. Journal
of the Society for Psychical Research, 51, 343-367.
HARRIS, M. J., & ROSENTHAL, R. (1988). Human performance research:
An overview. In Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques
Background Papers—Part I. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (Publication-on-Demand
Program).
HONORTON, C. (1985). Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A response
to Hyman. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 51-91.
HYMAN, R. (1981). Scientists and psychics. In G. 0. Abell & B. Singer
(Eds.), Science and the Paranormal: Probing the Existence of the Supernatural
(pp. 119-141). New York: Scribner’s.
|
Book Review Articles: The Elusive Agenda
203
HYMAN, R. (1989). The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical
Research. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
KURTZ, P. (Ed.). (1985). A Skeptic’s Handbook of Parapsychology.
Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
MARKS, D. F. (1988). Comment of the Review Coordinator. In R. Hyman,
“Psi experiments: Do the best parapsychological experiments justify the
claims for psi?” Experientia, 44, p. 318.
MAUSKOPF, S. H. (1980). Comments by Seymour H. Mauskopf. Zetetic
Scholar, No. 6, 58-60.
PALMER, J. A., HONORTON, C., & UTTS, J. (1989). Reply to the National
Research Council study on parapsychology. Journal of the American Society
for Psychical Research, 83, 31-49.
PINCH, T. J., & COLLINS, H. M. (1984). Private science and public
knowledge: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the [sic]
Claims of the Paranormal and its use of the literature. Social Studies
of Science, 14, 521-546.
PSYCHOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES. (1985). PsiLab II.
Princeton, NJ: Psychophysical Research Laboratories.
SAUNDERS, D. R. (1985). On Hyman’s factor analyses. Journal of Parapsychology,
49, 86-88.
SCOTT, C. (1986). Comment on the Hyman-Honorton debate. Journal of
Parapsychology, 50, 349-350.
UTTS, J. (1986). The ganzfeld debate: A statistician’s perspective.
Journal
of Parapsychology, 50, 393-402.
Princeton Arms North 1, Apt. 59
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512
|
|
|
