Editing Parapsychology (section)

===Experimental research===

====Ganzfeld====
{{Main| Ganzfeld experiment}}
The [[Ganzfeld experiment|Ganzfeld]] ([[German language|German]] for "whole field") is a technique used to test individuals for telepathy. The technique—a form of moderate [[sensory deprivation]]—was developed to quickly quiet mental "noise" by providing mild, unpatterned stimuli to the [[visual]] and [[Auditory system|auditory]] senses. The visual sense is usually isolated by creating a soft red glow which is diffused through half [[ping-pong ball]]s placed over the recipient's eyes. The auditory sense is usually blocked by playing [[white noise]], static, or similar sounds to the recipient. The subject is also seated in a reclined, comfortable position to minimize the sense of touch.<ref name="Radin2007">{{Cite book| title=The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena | author=Dean I. Radin | publisher= HarperOne | isbn=978-0062515025 | ref=ConsciousUniverse | year=1997}}</ref>

In the typical Ganzfeld experiment, a "sender" and a "receiver" are isolated.<ref name="HymanGanzfeld">{{Cite journal | author = Hyman, Ray |author-link=Ray Hyman| year = 1985 | title = The Ganzfeld Psi Experiments: A Critical Appraisal | journal = Journal of Parapsychology | volume = 49 }}</ref> The receiver is put into the Ganzfeld state,<ref name="Radin2007"/> or [[Ganzfeld effect]] and the sender is shown a video clip or still picture and asked to send that image to the receiver mentally. While in the Ganzfeld, experimenters ask the receiver to continuously speak aloud all mental processes, including images, thoughts, and feelings. At the end of the sending period, typically about 20 to 40 minutes, the receiver is taken out of the Ganzfeld state and shown four images or videos, one of which is the actual target and three non-target decoys. The receiver attempts to select the target, using perceptions experienced during the Ganzfeld state as clues to what the mentally "sent" image might have been.

[[File:Ganzfeld.jpg|thumb|left|Participant of a [[Ganzfeld experiment]]. Proponents say such experiments have shown evidence of telepathy,<ref name=PsychologicalBulletin2/> while critics like [[Ray Hyman]] have pointed out that they have not been independently replicated.<ref name=PsychologicalBulletin1/>]]
The Ganzfeld experiment studies that were examined by [[Ray Hyman]] and [[Charles Honorton]] had methodological problems that were well documented. Honorton reported only 36% of the studies used duplicate target sets of pictures to avoid handling cues.<ref>Julie Milton, [[Richard Wiseman]]. (2002). ''A Response to Storm and Ertel (2002)''. The Journal of Parapsychology. Volume 66: 183–186.</ref> Hyman discovered flaws in all of the 42 Ganzfeld experiments, and to assess each experiment, he devised a set of 12 categories of flaws. Six of these concerned statistical defects, and the other six covered procedural flaws such as inadequate [[documentation]], randomization, security, and possibilities of sensory leakage.<ref name="Hyman2007"/> Over half of the studies failed to safeguard against [[sensory leakage]], and all of the studies contained at least one of the 12 flaws. Because of the flaws, Honorton agreed with Hyman the 42 Ganzfeld studies could not support the claim for the existence of psi.<ref name="Hyman2007"/>

Possibilities of sensory leakage in the Ganzfeld experiments included the receivers hearing what was going on in the sender's room next door as the rooms were not soundproof and the sender's fingerprints to be visible on the target object for the receiver to see.<ref>[[Richard Wiseman]], Matthew Smith, Diana Kornbrot. (1996). ''Assessing possible sender-to-experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld''. Journal of Parapsychology. Volume 60: 97–128.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html |title=ganzfeld – The Skeptic's Dictionary |publisher=Skepdic.com |date=2011-12-27 |access-date=2014-04-11}}</ref> Hyman reviewed the autoganzfeld experiments and discovered a pattern in the data that implied a visual cue may have taken place. Hyman wrote the autoganzfeld experiments were flawed because they did not preclude the possibility of sensory leakage.<ref name="Hyman2007"/>

In 2010, Lance Storm, Patrizio Tressoldi, and Lorenzo Di Risio analyzed 29 Ganzfeld studies from 1997 to 2008. Of the 1,498 trials, 483 produced hits, corresponding to a hit rate of 32.2%. This hit rate is [[Statistical significance|statistically significant]] with {{nowrap|p < .001.}} Participants selected for personality traits and personal characteristics thought to be psi-conducive were found to perform significantly better than unselected participants in the Ganzfeld condition.<ref name=StormEtAl2010>{{cite journal |url=http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf |journal=Psychological Bulletin |date=July 2010 |title=Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology |author=Lance Storm |author2=Patrizio E. Tressoldi |author3=Lorenzo Di Risio |volume=136 |issue=4 |pages=471–85 |access-date=2010-08-18 |pmid=20565164 |doi=10.1037/a0019457 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110124055506/http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf |archive-date=2011-01-24 }}</ref> Hyman (2010) published a rebuttal to Storm ''et al''. According to Hyman, "Reliance on meta-analysis as the sole basis for justifying the claim that an anomaly exists and that the evidence for it is consistent and replicable is fallacious. It distorts what scientists mean by confirmatory evidence." Hyman wrote that the Ganzfeld studies were not independently replicated and failed to produce evidence for psi.<ref name=PsychologicalBulletin1>{{cite journal|last1=Hyman |first1=R |year=2010 |title=Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals: Comment on Storm et al |url=http://drsmorey.org/bibtex/upload/Hyman:2010.pdf |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=136 |issue= 4|pages=486–490 |doi=10.1037/a0019676 |pmid=20565165 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103081111/http://drsmorey.org/bibtex/upload/Hyman%3A2010.pdf |archive-date=2013-11-03 }}</ref> Storm ''et al''. published a response to Hyman stating that the Ganzfeld experimental design has proved to be consistent and reliable, that parapsychology is a struggling discipline that has not received much attention, and that therefore further research on the subject is necessary.<ref name=PsychologicalBulletin2>{{cite journal | last1 = Storm | first1 = L. | last2 = Tressoldi | first2 = P. E. | last3 = Di Risio | first3 = L. | year = 2010 | title = A meta-analysis with nothing to hide: Reply to Hyman (2010)| journal = Psychological Bulletin | volume = 136 | issue = 4| pages = 491–494 | doi=10.1037/a0019840| pmid = 20565166 }}</ref> Rouder ''et al''. 2013 wrote that critical evaluation of Storm ''et al''.'s meta-analysis reveals no evidence for psi, no plausible mechanism and omitted replication failures.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Rouder | first1 = J. N. | last2 = Morey | first2 = R. D. | last3 = Province | first3 = J. M. | year = 2013 | title = A Bayes factor meta-analysis of recent extrasensory perception experiments: Comment on Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010) | journal = Psychological Bulletin | volume = 139 | issue = 1| pages = 241–247 | doi=10.1037/a0029008| pmid = 23294092 }}</ref>

====Remote viewing====
{{Main| Remote viewing}}
[[File:Russell Targ, physicist.jpg|thumb|upright|right|alt=Russell Targ, co-founder of the Stargate Project|[[Russell Targ]], co-founder of the [[Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit)|Stargate Project]]]] Remote viewing is the practice of seeking impressions about a distant or unseen target using subjective means, in particular, extrasensory perception. A remote viewer is typically expected to give information about an object, event, person, or location hidden from physical view and separated at some distance.<ref>Leonard Zusne, Warren H. Jones (1989). ''Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking''. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 167. {{ISBN|0805805087}}</ref> Several hundred such trials have been conducted by investigators over the past 25 years, including those by the [[Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory]] (PEAR) and by scientists at [[SRI International]] and [[Science Applications International Corporation]].<ref name="EnhancingHuman">{{Cite book|editor1-first=Daniel|editor1-link=Daniel Druckman|editor1-last=Druckman|editor2-first=John A. |editor2-last=Swets|title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques|publisher=National Academy Press|year=1988|page=176}}</ref><ref name="ReinventingMedicine">{{Cite book|last=Dossey|first=Larry|author-link=Larry Dossey|title=Reinventing Medicine|journal=Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine|publisher=HarperCollins|year=1999|volume=6|issue=3|pages= 125–128|pmid=10836843|isbn=978-0062516220|url=https://archive.org/details/reinventingmedic00larr/page/105}}</ref> Many of these were under contract by the [[U.S. government]] as part of the espionage program [[Stargate Project (U.S. Army unit)|Stargate Project]], which terminated in 1995 having failed to document any practical intelligence value.<ref name="Time">{{cite magazine |last=Waller |first=Douglas |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983829,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070209085903/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983829,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 9, 2007 |title=The Vision Thing |magazine=Time |date=1995-12-11 |access-date=2014-04-11 }}</ref>

The psychologists [[David Marks (psychologist)|David Marks]] and Richard Kammann attempted to replicate [[Russell Targ]] and [[Harold E. Puthoff|Harold Puthoff]]'s remote viewing experiments that were carried out in the 1970s at SRI International. In a series of 35 studies, they could not replicate the results, motivating them to investigate the procedure of the original experiments. Marks and Kammann discovered that the notes given to the judges in Targ and Puthoff's experiments contained clues as to the order in which they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday's two targets or having the session date written at the top of the page. They concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment's high hit rates.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Marks | first1 = David | author-link = David Marks (psychologist) | last2 = Kammann | first2 = Richard | year = 1978 | title = Information transmission in remote viewing experiments | journal = Nature | volume = 274 | issue = 5672| pages = 680–81 | doi=10.1038/274680a0| bibcode = 1978Natur.274..680M | s2cid = 4249968 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Marks | first1 = David | author-link = David Marks (psychologist) | year = 1981 | title = Sensory cues invalidate remote viewing experiments | journal = Nature | volume = 292 | issue = 5819| page = 177 | doi=10.1038/292177a0| pmid = 7242682 | bibcode = 1981Natur.292..177M| s2cid = 4326382 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Marks was able to achieve 100 percent accuracy without visiting any of the sites himself but by using cues.<ref>Martin Bridgstock. (2009). ''Beyond Belief: Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal''. Cambridge University Press. p. 106. {{ISBN|978-0521758932}} "The explanation used by Marks and Kammann clearly involves the use of [[Occam's razor]]. Marks and Kammann argued that the 'cues' - clues to the order in which sites had been visited—provided sufficient information for the results, without any recourse to extrasensory perception. Indeed Marks himself was able to achieve 100 percent accuracy in allocating some transcripts to sites without visiting any of the sites himself, purely on the ground basis of the cues. From Occam's razor, it follows that if a straightforward natural explanation exists, there is no need for the spectacular paranormal explanation: Targ and Puthoff's claims are not justified".</ref> [[James Randi]] wrote controlled tests in collaboration with several other researchers, eliminating several sources of cueing and extraneous evidence present in the original tests; Randi's controlled tests produced negative results. Students could also solve Puthoff and Targ's locations from the cues included in the transcripts.<ref>{{cite Encyclopedia of Claims |title=Remote Viewing |first-letter=r |access-date=26 January 2022 }}</ref>

In 1980, [[Charles Tart]] claimed that rejudging the transcripts from one of Targ and Puthoff's experiments revealed an above-chance result.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Tart | first1 = Charles | author-link = Charles Tart | author-link2 = Harold E. Puthoff | author-link3 = Russell Targ | last2 = Puthoff | first2 = Harold | last3 = Targ | first3 = Russell | year = 1980 | title = Information Transmission in Remote Viewing Experiments | journal = Nature | volume = 284 | issue = 5752| page = 191 | doi=10.1038/284191a0 | pmid=7360248| bibcode = 1980Natur.284..191T | s2cid = 4326363 | doi-access = free }}</ref> Targ and Puthoff again refused to provide copies of the transcripts and it was not until July 1985 that they were made available for study, when it was discovered they still contained [[sensory cue]]s.<ref>[[Terence Hines]]. (2003). ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. p. 136. {{ISBN|1573929794}}</ref> Marks and Christopher Scott (1986) wrote, "Considering the importance for the remote viewing hypothesis of adequate cue removal, Tart's failure to perform this basic task seems beyond comprehension. As previously concluded, remote viewing has not been demonstrated in the experiments conducted by Puthoff and Targ, only the repeated failure of the investigators to remove sensory cues."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Marks | first1 = David | author-link = David Marks (psychologist) | last2 = Scott | first2 = Christopher | year = 1986 | title = Remote Viewing Exposed | journal = Nature | volume = 319 | issue = 6053| page = 444 | doi=10.1038/319444a0 | pmid=3945330| bibcode = 1986Natur.319..444M | s2cid = 13642580 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

PEAR closed its doors at the end of February 2007. Its founder, [[Robert G. Jahn]], said of it, "For 28 years, we've done what we wanted to do, and there's no reason to stay and generate more of the same data."<ref name="NY Times 2007-02-06"/> Statistical flaws in his work have been proposed by others in the parapsychological and general scientific communities.<ref name="Hansen">{{cite web|author=George P. Hansen |url=http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm |title=Princeton [PEAR&#93; Remote-Viewing Experiments – A Critique |publisher=Tricksterbook.com |access-date=2014-04-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |url= http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/ |title= The PEAR proposition: Fact or fallacy? |journal= [[Skeptical Inquirer]] |author= Stanley Jeffers |date= May–June 2006 |access-date= 2014-01-24 |volume= 30 |issue= 3 |archive-date= 2014-02-01 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140201122738/http://www.csicop.org/si/show/pear_proposition_fact_or_fallacy/ |url-status= dead }}</ref> The physicist [[Robert L. Park]] said of PEAR, "It's been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton".<ref name="NY Times 2007-02-06">{{cite news
  | last = Carey
  | first = Benedict
  | title = A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors
  | newspaper = New York Times
  | date = 2007-02-06
  | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=2f8f7bdba3ac59f1&ex=1328763600
  | access-date = 2007-08-03 }}
</ref>

====Psychokinesis on random number generators====
{{Main|Psychokinesis}}
The advent of powerful and inexpensive electronic and computer technologies has allowed the development of fully automated experiments studying possible interactions between [[Mind-body dichotomy|mind and matter]]. In the most common experiment of this type, a [[Random number generation|random number generator]] (RNG), based on electronic or [[radioactive]] noise, produces a data stream that is recorded and analyzed by computer [[software]]. A subject attempts to mentally alter the distribution of the random numbers, usually in an experimental design that is functionally equivalent to getting more "heads" than "tails" while [[flipping a coin]]. In the RNG experiment, design flexibility can be combined with rigorous controls while collecting a large amount of data quickly. This technique has been used both to test individuals for psychokinesis and to test the possible influence on RNGs of large groups of people.<ref name=Dunne85>{{Cite journal|last=Dunne |first=Brenda J. |author2=Jahn, Robert G. |title=On the quantum mechanics of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena |journal=Foundations of Physics |volume=16 |issue=8 |pages=721–772 |year=1985 |doi=10.1007/BF00735378|bibcode=1986FoPh...16..721J|s2cid=123188076 }}</ref>

Major meta-analyses of the RNG database have been published every few years since appearing in the journal ''[[Foundations of Physics]]'' in 1986.<ref name="Dunne85"/> PEAR founder [[Robert G. Jahn]] and his colleague Brenda Dunne say that the experiments produced "a very small effect" not significant enough to be observed over a brief experiment but over a large number of trials resulted in a tiny statistical deviation from chance.<ref name="Park 2000"/> According to [[Massimo Pigliucci]], the results from PEAR can be explained without invoking the paranormal because of two problems with the experiment:  "the difficulty of designing machines capable of generating truly random events and the fact that statistical "significance" is not at all a good measure of the importance or genuineness of a phenomenon."<ref name="Pigliucci2010">[[Massimo Pigliucci]]. (2010). ''Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk''. University of Chicago Press. pp. 77–80. {{ISBN|978-0226667867}}</ref> Pigluicci has written that the statistical analysis used by the Jahn and the PEAR group relied on a quantity called a "[[p-value]]", but a problem with p-values is that if the sample size (number of trials) is very large, like the PEAR tests, then one is guaranteed to find artificially low p-values indicating a statistically significant result even though nothing was occurring other than small biases in the experimental apparatus.<ref name="Pigliucci2010"/>

Two German independent scientific groups have failed to replicate the PEAR results.<ref name="Pigliucci2010"/> Pigliucci has written this was "yet another indication that the simplest hypothesis is likely to be true: there was nothing to replicate."<ref name="Pigliucci2010"/> The most recent meta-analysis on [[psychokinesis]] was published in ''[[Psychological Bulletin]]'', along with several critical commentaries. It analyzed the results of 380 studies; the authors reported an overall positive effect size that was statistically significant but very small relative to the sample size and could, in principle, be explained by [[publication bias]].<ref name="pmid16822162">{{Cite journal|vauthors=Bösch H, Steinkamp F, Boller E |title=Examining psychokinesis: the interaction of human intention with random number generators – a meta-analysis |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=132 |issue=4 |pages=497–523 |year=2006 |pmid=16822162 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497|quote=The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation showed that the very small effect size relative to the large, heterogenous sample size could in principle be a result of publication bias.}}</ref><ref name="pmid16822164">{{Cite journal|author1=Radin, D. |author2=Nelson, R. |author3=Dobyns, Y. |author4=Houtkooper, J. |title=Reexamining psychokinesis: comment on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=132 |issue=4 |pages=529–532; discussion 533–537 |year=2006 |pmid=16822164 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.529}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Wilson | first1 = David B. | last2 = Shadish | first2 = William R. | year = 2006 | title = On blowing trumpets to the tulips: To prove or not to prove the null hypothesis – Comment on Bösch, Steinkamp, and Boller | journal = Psychological Bulletin | volume = 132 | issue = 4| pages = 524–528 | doi=10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.524| pmid = 16822163 | url = https://zenodo.org/record/996283 }}</ref>

====Direct mental interactions with living systems====
Formerly called bio-PK, "direct mental interactions with living systems" (DMILS) studies the effects of one person's intentions on a distant person's [[psychophysiological]] state.<ref name="pmid15142304" /> One type of DMILS experiment looks at the commonly reported "feeling of being stared at". The "starer" and the "staree" are isolated in different locations, and the starer is periodically asked to simply gaze at the staree via closed-circuit video links. Meanwhile, the staree's nervous system activity is automatically and continuously monitored.

Parapsychologists have interpreted the cumulative data on this and similar DMILS experiments to suggest that one person's attention directed towards a remote, isolated person can significantly activate or calm that person's [[nervous system]]. In a meta-analysis of these experiments published in the ''British Journal of Psychology'' in 2004, researchers found a small but significant overall DMILS effect. However, the study also found that the effect size was insignificant when a small number of the highest-quality studies from one laboratory were analyzed. The authors concluded that although the existence of some anomaly related to distant intentions cannot be ruled out, there was also a shortage of independent replications and theoretical concepts.<ref name="pmid15142304">{{Cite journal|author1=Schmidt, S. |author2=Schneider, R. |author3=Utts, J. |author4=Walach, H. |title=Distant intentionality and the feeling of being stared at: two meta-analyses |journal=British Journal of Psychology |volume=95 |issue=Pt 2 |pages=235–247 |year=2004 |pmid=15142304 |doi=10.1348/000712604773952449}}</ref>