Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus
🧐 Skeptical/Critical ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
Here's a brain-twister: what if proving psychic phenomena actually destroys the proof? That's the 'psi paradox' at the heart of this paper. Science assumes the experimenter doesn't magically influence results just by watching -- but if psi is real, that assumption collapses, and the whole experiment eats itself in a logical loop. The author walks through famous cases like Bem's precognition studies and the Ganzfeld telepathy experiments to show how this trap keeps springing. He ties this neatly into psychology's broader replication crisis -- where even ordinary findings often can't be repeated -- and suggests we may need entirely new frameworks beyond classical experiments to make progress.
Abstract
The replicability crisis in psychology has been influenced by the results of nine experiments conducted by Bem (2011) and presented as supporting the existence of precognition. In this paper, we hope to show how the debate concerning these experiments could be an opportunity to develop original thinking about psychology and replicability. After a few preliminary remarks about psi and scientific epistemology, we examine how psi results lead to a paradox which questions how appropriate the scientific method is to psi research. This paradox highlights a problem in the way experiments are conducted in psi research and its potential consequence on mainstream research in psychology. Two classical experiments – the Ganzfeld protocol and the Bem studies – are then analyzed in order to illustrate this paradox and its consequences. Mainstream research is also addressed in the broader context of the replication crisis, decline effect and questionable research practices. Several perspectives for future research are proposed in conclusion and underline the heuristic value of psi studies for psychology.
Links
Related Papers
Cites
- Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect — Bem, Daryl J (2011)
- Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer — Bem, Daryl J (1994)
- Feeling the Future: A Meta-Analysis of 90 Experiments on the Anomalous Anticipation of Random Future Events — Bem, Daryl J (2015)
- Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies, 1992–2008: Assessing the Noise Reduction Model in Parapsychology — Storm, Lance (2010)
- Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: A Meta-Analysis — Mossbridge, Julia (2012)
- Why Psychologists Must Change the Way They Analyze Their Data: The Case of Psi — Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan (2011)
- Searching for the Impossible: Parapsychology's Elusive Quest — Reber, Arthur S (2019)
- Decision Augmentation Theory: Toward a Model of Anomalous Mental Phenomena — May, Edwin C (1995)
- The Capricious, Actively Evasive, Unsustainable Nature of Psi: A Summary and Hypotheses — Kennedy, J.E (2003)
- Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology — Bierman, Dick J (2016)
- Failing the Future: Three Unsuccessful Attempts to Replicate Bem's 'Retroactive Facilitation of Recall' Effect — Ritchie, Stuart J (2012)
- Correcting the Past: Failures to Replicate Psi — Galak, Jeff (2012)
- Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention With Random Number Generators—A Meta-Analysis — Bösch, Holger (2006)
- A Call for an Open, Informed Study of All Aspects of Consciousness — Cardeña, Etzel (2014)
- A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy — Hyman, Ray (1986)
- Anomalous Experiences, Psi, and Functional Neuroimaging — Acunzo, David J (2013)
Companion
- Is the Methodological Revolution in Psychology Over or Just Beginning? — Kennedy, J.E (2016)
- Conclusions about Paranormal Phenomena — Kennedy, J.E (2013)
- Can Parapsychology Move Beyond the Controversies of Retrospective Meta-Analyses? — Kennedy, J.E (2013)
- Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science — Open Science Collaboration (2015)
- The Garden of Forking Paths: Why Multiple Comparisons Can Be a Problem, Even When There Is No "Fishing Expedition" or "P-Hacking" and the Research Hypothesis Was Posited Ahead of Time — Gelman, Andrew (2013)
Also by these authors
When the Truth Is Out There: Counseling People Who Report Anomalous Experiences
A Preregistered Multi-Lab Replication of Maier et al. (2014, Exp. 4) Testing Retroactive Avoidance
Retro-priming, priming, and double testing: psi and replication in a test–retest design
More in Methodology
Paranormal belief, conspiracy endorsement, and positive wellbeing: a network analysis
Planning Falsifiable Confirmatory Research
Addressing Researcher Fraud: Retrospective, Real-Time, and Preventive Strategies — Including Legal Points and Data Management That Prevents Fraud
Quantum Aspects of the Brain-Mind Relationship: A Hypothesis with Supporting Evidence
Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research
📋 Cite this paper
Rabeyron, Thomas (2020). Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562992
@article{rabeyron_2020_most,
title = {Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus},
author = {Rabeyron, Thomas},
year = {2020},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562992},
}