Talk:Ganzfeld experiment/Archive 2

Honorton and Bem (1994) studies and their criticism
I made some edits to the article (see this).

Changes:
 * I added the overall hit rate of Bem and Honorton's (1994) studies.
 * The presentation of the critique of these studies is a bit chaotic and some statements are redundant: first, Bem and Honorton's experiments are mentioned, then Hyman's critique, Bem and Honorton again, then a newer meta-analysis of 30 studies by Milton and Wiseman, then a repeated statement of Bem and Honorton that their experiments had good security measures, and Hyman's critique again.
 * I thus rearranged the paragraphs so that they are consistent in time and narrative, and deleted the repetitive statements. I reformulated Hyman's criticism based on his 1994 comment with a more clear delineation of his main points.

I invite all editors to give me feedback on how the text may be improved. Please state specific suggestions, not only generic feedback. Larch150 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking over the edit in more depth, I had two primary concerns:
 * Stating the hit rate up-front doesn't properly contextualize the results as we do later. Yes, 32% is significant, but not when all our sources indicate sensory leakage took place. A possible fix, rather than removing the stat altogether, is to migrate it into the paragraph which discusses the hit rate already.
 * Removal of Hyman's conclusion. I think a concise summary is that the experiments were flawed due to sensory leakage. I've tried to incorporate that into the summary you provided; it's not quite as concise, but does provide some additional details, so I think that should do.
 * Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the feedback. I think that the structure: first presentation of the experiment, and then its critique is more transparent and pragmatic. Similarly, in the paragraph presenting the experiment you have the claim that the experiment met the standards of the 1986 communique, and this is criticized later. I think the contextualization is ok, the criticism is clearly presented right following the claims of the experimenters.

Larch150 (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is sometimes a trend to write articles this way: "Paragraph 1: Explanation without criticism. Paragraph 2: Criticism without further explanation. Paragraph 3: More explanation without criticm", etc. Ideally, we want to avoid that structure for several reasons. Yes, a hit rate of 32% would be signifncant, but in this particular experiment it is not significant due to sensory leakage. Given sensory leakage, what hit rate would we expect? If it were pronounced enough, maybe even 100%! I'd like to list the stats, but we need to do it all at once, not segregate out "32% was significant" and then a paragraph or two later dispute the claim. I'm open to other suggestions besides my wording. I'm just concerned with the proposed wording.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, but I don't put as much weight on it as you do. Yes, it is sometimes better to state the critical points together with the presentation, but not when the text is 6 lines long and the sentence following the hit rate is already the critique. The hit rate is significant statistically, and if it is an artifact, that is another question which is rightly addresses just 3 lines below. In this case such a structure simply seems more straightforward and transparent.
 * I am new to Wikipedia. In what way are cases like these resolved? Thanks! Larch150 (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you should check out WP:DR. But, I think you're missing a big part of my point: 32% is not significant, according to our sources. Saying that it is significant is incorrect. How many times can I "guess" the image in front of me if I can see part of the image?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 13:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ganzfeld experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914123724/http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/psych113/Bemetal.pdf to http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/psych113/Bemetal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ganzfeld experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110124055506/http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf to http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/cmssimple/uploads/includes/MetaFreeResp010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103081111/http://drsmorey.org/bibtex/upload/Hyman%3A2010.pdf to http://drsmorey.org/bibtex/upload/Hyman%3A2010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason to omit the hallucinatory aspect?
In several places like this I found references to the effect without the ESP mambo-jumbo, just as a technique to induce hallucinations. Is there a reason not to discuss this effect on its own? אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Temporal Discrepancy
"In 1982 Honorton had started a series of autoganzfeld experiments at his Psychophysical Research Laboratories (PRL). These studies were specifically designed to avoid the same potential problems as those identified in the 1986 joint communiqué issued by Hyman and Honorton" -- How can Honorton start a series of experiments in 1982, that would address issues published in 1986? Cjdrox (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Replication rate removals
Please desist from removing my contribution from the introduction section regarding the Ganzfeld having replication rate well above the null hypothesis. I've supplied the source that demonstrates this to be the case. It's simply dishonest to claim that the replication rate isn't consistent enough to be above a null hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AscentIntoOvermind (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * An article in a parapsychology journal unfortunately is not considered a WP:RS by Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is this described as "pseudoscientific"?
I am somewhat unhappy that this article begins by describing the Ganzfeld experiment as a "pseudoscientific technique". It is a proper experimental procedure, and there is a more balanced article on the Ganzfeld method in an online encyclopaedia that the Society for Psychical Research had developed, available on: https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk. Rollo August (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Our parapsychology article states that parapsychology is "considered to be pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists". Since ganzfeld is only used there, it would also be pseudoscientific. The Society for Psychical Research is generally positively inclined towards parapsychology, therefore its website is expected to disagree with the mainstream. We don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE here.
 * Psi is defined, loosely speaking, as something a parapsychologist cannot find a natural explanation for, and since parapsychologists are human and have a finite knowledge base, the sensible approach is that the reason for the failure is not in the effect but in the person who has failed. In sort: the parapsychologist has overlooked something. This is compatible with the fact that psi tends to go away if you look again or look closer - the closer you watch, the fewer things you overlook.
 * But the article does not mention "pseudoscientific" or "pseudoscience" at the moment, so it does not belong in the lead, since the lead is supposed to summarize the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific is a discriminatory term that is completely incorrect to use when describing a carefully controlled experiment or set of experiments that adhere to strict scientific protocols such as blinding and randomization procedures. Most Parapsychologists who publish in scientific publications such as the JSPR, JSE, ASPR, PA, and belong to these societies are known for carrying out rigorous, carefully constructed experiments that undergo strict peer review. This means that the term Pseudoscientific is incorrectly applied here and to other Wikipedia pages and those who run this site know this. This is outright marginalization of an entire topic.

Further scientists can't even describe what light or gravity or life itself is - so this idea that experiments can't be performed in a scientific manner on topics one doesn't fully understand yet is just incorrect. It doesn't require a solid theory or explanation to perform Ganzfeld related tests any more then it requires someone with a theory to test different effects of medications. It's about recording and analyzing responses when particular variables are controlled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.84.63 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of pseudoscience is published in journals that have outward properties of science. It's part of the mimicry. "Carefully controlling" is not enough either. And light, gravity or life are completely irrelevant. See Red herring.
 * Nobody cares for the reasons you have for not considering parapsychology pseudoscience. If you want to change the article, you'll need more than your opinion. You will need reliable sources outweighing the sources which are currently used. --Hob Gadling (talk)