Parapsychology: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 55:

In 1938, the psychologist [[Joseph Jastrow]] wrote that much of the evidence for extrasensory perception collected by Rhine and other parapsychologists was anecdotal, biased, dubious and the result of "faulty observation and familiar human frailties".<ref>[[Joseph Jastrow]]. (1938). ''ESP, House of Cards''. The American Scholar 8: 13-22.</ref> Rhine's experiments were discredited due to the discovery that [[sensory leakage]] or cheating could account for all his results such as the subject being able to read the symbols from the back of the cards and being able to see and hear the experimenter to note subtle clues.<ref>[[Harold Gulliksen]]. (1938). ''Extra-Sensory Perception: What Is It?''. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. 623-634. "Investigating Rhine's methods, we find that his mathematical methods are wrong and that the effect of this error would in some cases be negligible and in others very marked. We find that many of his experiments were set up in a manner which would tend to increase, instead of to diminish, the possibility of systematic clerical errors; and lastly, that the ESP cards can be read from the back."</ref><ref>Charles M. Wynn, Arthur W. Wiggins. (2001). ''Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins''. Joseph Henry Press. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-309-07309-7 "In 1940, Rhine coauthored a book, ''Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years'' in which he suggested that something more than mere guess work was involved in his experiments. He was right! It is now known that the experiments conducted in his laboratory contained serious methodological flaws. Tests often took place with minimal or no screening between the subject and the person administering the test. Subjects could see the backs of cards that were later discovered to be so cheaply printed that a faint outline of the symbol could be seen. Furthermore, in face-to-face tests, subjects could see card faces reflected in the tester’s eyeglasses or cornea. They were even able to (consciously or unconsciously) pick up clues from the tester’s facial expression and voice inflection. In addition, an observant subject could identify the cards by certain irregularities like warped edges, spots on the backs, or design imperfections."</ref><ref>[[Terence Hines]]. (2003). ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. p. 122. ISBN 1-57392-979-4 "The procedural errors in the Rhine experiments have been extremely damaging to his claims to have demonstrated the existence of ESP. Equally damaging has been the fact that the results have not replicated when the experiments have been conducted in other laboratories."</ref><ref>Jonathan C. Smith. (2009). [https://books.google.com/books?id=sJgONrua8IkC&pg=PT226&dq=rhine+pseudoscience&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MI2fUr7qIMqrhQelt4HgAg&ved=0CDcQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=rhine%20pseudoscience&f=false ''Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit'']. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1405181228. "Today, researchers discount the first decade of Rhine's work with Zener cards. Stimulus leakage or cheating could account for all his findings. Slight indentations on the backs of cards revealed the symbols embossed on card faces. Subjects could see and hear the experimenter, and note subtle but revealing facial expressions or changes in breathing."</ref>

After thousands of card runs, the psychologist James Charles Crumbaugh]] failed to duplicate the results of Rhine.<ref>[[James Alcock|Alcock, James]]. (1981). ''Parapsychology-Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective''. Pergamon Press. 136. ISBN 978-0080257730</ref>

[[File:Hubert Pearce with J. B. Rhine.png|thumb|[[Hubert Pearce]] with J. B. Rhine.]]