Talk:Robert G. Jahn

The Validity of PEAR
"This research is becoming frequently cited; for instance, Braude (1987) described it as “careful work” (p. 573). McConnell (1987, p. 204-205) approvingly quoted the results.  T. Rockwell and W. T. Rockwell (1988) said: “They have avoided questions of sensory leakage in remote perception” (p. 361), “and they have carried the statistical analysis rigorously to the ends of any possible argument we can envision” (p. 362).  They made similar statements in a popular magazine (T. Rockwell & W. T. Rockwell, 1989).  Nelson and Radin (1987) specifically touted the work as meeting Alcock’s (completely erroneous) statistical objections.  Beloff (1989, p. 365) declared their statistical procedure to be “a valid method of assessment.”  Popular authors Alexander, Groller, and Morris (1990) and Ellison (1988) have also promoted the research."

Seems inconsistent or at least at odds with the statement: "Statistical flaws in his work have been proposed by others in the parapsychological community and within the general scientific community. Jahn closed the PEAR lab in 2007."

At the very least, it's misleading. Jahn devoted over 20 years of his career to this topic; I think it deserves further exposition.

"Robert Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland, adds that if you run any test often enough, it's easy to get the "tiny statistical edges" the PEAR team seems to have picked up. If a coin is flipped enough times, for example, even a slight imperfection can produce more than 50% heads.

In the end, the decision whether to pursue a tiny apparent effect or put it down to statistical flaws is a subjective one. "It raises the issue of where you draw the line," says sceptic Chris French, an 'anomalistic psychologist' at Goldsmiths, University of London, who tries to explain what seem to be paranormal experiences in straightforward psychological terms. French thinks that even though the chances of a real effect being discovered are low, the implications of a positive result would be so interesting that work such as Jahn's is worth pursuing."

Biotheoretician (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * @Biotheoretician, I'm not sure what point is being made here. The first paragraph above is simply a quote from the introduction to the Hansen et al 1992 paper in J of Parapsychology. The cites are made by those authors to set the background and context for their subsequent discussion; thus, they're of no direct use for improving our article.
 * With regard to your comment that Jahn's work deserves further exposition, I think I agree; we should certainly consider including a reference to Hansen et al's own conclusion, which reads as follows.....
 * The PEAR remote-viewing experiments depart from commonly accepted criteria for formal research in science. In fact, they are undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP experiments published in many years.  The defects provide plausible alternative explanations.  There do not appear to be any methods available for proper statistical evaluation of these experiments because of the way in which they were conducted.
 * jxm (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert G. Jahn. 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/20140512074303/http://www.elwingcorp.com/about-the-elwing-company/leadership-of-the-elwing-company/ to http://www.elwingcorp.com/about-the-elwing-company/leadership-of-the-elwing-company/

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) 15:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)