📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
Here is a delicious piece of turnabout: skeptics love scrutinizing paranormal research for sloppy methods, but what happens when you turn that same magnifying glass on the skeptics themselves? J.E. Kennedy did exactly that back in 1981 and found some jaw-dropping examples. Martin Gardner flat-out misrepresented the results of classic ESP experiments. Physicist John Wheeler publicly accused J.B. Rhine of data fraud at a major science meeting -- an accusation so baseless he had to retract it in the journal Science. One researcher ran an ESP replication but slashed the trial count from over six thousand down to just 450 after the early data looked positive, essentially engineering a failure. Another team used after-the-fact statistical cherry-picking to dismiss a finding that was already significant. Kennedy's point is simple but powerful: bias cuts both ways, and failed replications by motivated skeptics deserve just as hard a look as positive results from believers.
Research Notes
Kennedy's earliest examination of methodological double standards in psi research—a theme spanning four decades of his work. An important counterpoint to skeptical critiques in the library, demonstrating that experimenter bias operates symmetrically. Directly relevant to the meta-debate controversy (#10).
Examines whether biased errors by skeptics play a decisive role in producing their negative results in borderline science, particularly parapsychology. Four case studies are analyzed: Martin Gardner's factual misrepresentations of Coover's ESP experiments in 'Fads and Fallacies,' John Wheeler's fabricated accusation of data fraud against J.B. Rhine at the 1979 AAAS meeting (later retracted in Science), Warner Wilson's strategically underpowered ESP replication that reduced 6,210 trials to 450 after finding p<.005, and Zelen, Kurtz, and Abell's post-hoc subgroup analysis used to undermine the overall significant (p<.03) Mars effect. Concludes that negative results by skeptics require the same methodological scrutiny as positive findings by proponents.
Related Papers
Same Research Program
- Experimenter Fraud: What Are Appropriate Methodological Standards? — Kennedy, J.E (2017)
- A Proposal and Challenge for Proponents and Skeptics of Psi — Kennedy, J.E (2004)
- The Capricious, Actively Evasive, Unsustainable Nature of Psi: A Summary and Hypotheses — Kennedy, J.E (2003)
- Conclusions about Paranormal Phenomena — Kennedy, J.E (2013)
- Can Parapsychology Move Beyond the Controversies of Retrospective Meta-Analyses? — Kennedy, J.E (2013)
Companion
- Statistical Problems in ESP Research — Diaconis, Persi (1978)
- Of Two Minds: Sceptic-Proponent Collaboration within Parapsychology — Schlitz, Marilyn J (2006)
- Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance: Reasons to Remain Doubtful about the Existence of Psi — Alcock, James E (2003)
- Paranormal psychic believers and skeptics: a large-scale test of the cognitive differences hypothesis — Gray, Stephen J (2016)
Also by these authors
Is the Methodological Revolution in Psychology Over or Just Beginning?
Bayesian and Classical Hypothesis Testing: Practical Differences for a Controversial Area of Research
Information in Life, Consciousness, Quantum Physics, and Paranormal Phenomena
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
Kennedy, J.E (1981). Skepticism and Negative Results in Borderline Areas of Science. .
@article{kennedy_1981_skepticism_negative_results,
title = {Skepticism and Negative Results in Borderline Areas of Science},
author = {Kennedy, J.E},
year = {1981},
journal = {},
}