Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences
⚡ Contested ↗📌 Appears in:
Plain English Summary
This companion review tackles the same question — real evidence for perception beyond physical senses? — laying out raw numbers impressively. Across 200-plus studies and 6,000-plus participants, Tressoldi examined six experimental setups using traditional statistics and Bayesian analysis (which measures how much data shifts odds toward one explanation). Every protocol beat chance statistically. But the Bayesian results get wild: ganzfeld experiments (relaxed participants identifying hidden images) hit a Bayes factor of nearly 19 million. Remote viewing reached 25 billion. Presentiment — your body seemingly reacting before something happens — scored an astronomical 2.89 trillion. Normal-consciousness protocols actually favored the skeptical explanation. Quality-versus-effect-size correlations ran modestly positive, meaning better-designed studies didn't produce weaker results — directly challenging the "it's all bad methodology" critique.
Research Notes
Companion paper to tressoldi_2011_extraordinary (same DOI, different folder for remote viewing content). Directly addresses 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' challenge. Provides both frequentist and Bayesian quantitative frameworks. Important for controversies #1 (ganzfeld), #2 (precognition), #5 (remote viewing), #10 (meta-debate). Bayesian analysis shows strong evidence for ganzfeld, RV, presentiment but not normal-consciousness protocols. Published in Frontiers in Psychology 2011;2:117.
This mini-review presents quantitative evidence from 7 databases covering 6 non-local perception (NLP) protocols, analyzed using both frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis. Protocols include: ganzfeld free-response (108 studies, 3,650 participants), anticipatory psycho-physiological responses (37 studies, 1,064 participants), forced-choice ESP without ASC (72 studies, 69,726 participants), free-response with ASC (16 studies, 427 participants), free-response normal consciousness (14 studies, 1,026 participants), and remote viewing (Milton 1997: 78 studies, 1,158 participants; Dunne & Jahn 2003 PEAR: 366 participants). Frequentist analysis rejected null for all protocols (effect sizes d=0.007-0.28). Bayesian analysis showed strong evidence for H1 in 3 protocols: ganzfeld (BF=18,861,051), remote viewing (BF=25,424,503,838), anticipatory responses (BF=2.89×10^13). Normal consciousness protocols favored null (BF=0.003-0.029). Quality-effect size correlations were modestly positive (r=0.05-0.36). Total: 200+ studies, 6,000+ participants.
Links
Related Papers
Cites
Meta Analyzes
Same Research Program
- Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, A Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences — Tressoldi, Patrizio E (2011)
- Replication Unreliability in Psychology: Elusive Phenomena or "Elusive" Statistical Power? — Tressoldi, Patrizio E (2012)
- Mental Connection at Distance: Useful for Solving Difficult Tasks? — Tressoldi, Patrizio E (2011)
- Extrasensory Perception and Quantum Models of Cognition — Tressoldi, Patrizio E (2010)
Also by these authors
Meta-Analysis of Free-Response Studies 2009-2018: Assessing the Noise-Reduction Model Ten Years On
On the Correspondence Between Dream Content and Target Material Under Laboratory Conditions: A Meta-Analysis of Dream-ESP Studies, 1966-2016
EEG Correlates of Social Interaction at Distance
More in Remote Viewing
Exploring the Correlates and Nature of Subjective Anomalous Interactions with Objects (Psychometry): A Mixed Methods Survey
Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Remote Viewing Experiments
The Location and Reconstruction of a Byzantine Structure in Marea, Egypt, Including a Comparison of Electronic Remote Sensing and Remote Viewing
Greg Kolodziejzyk's 13-Year Associative Remote Viewing Experiment Results
Remote Viewing as Applied to Futures Studies
📋 Cite this paper
Tressoldi, Patrizio E (2011). Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00117
@article{tressoldi_2011_extraordinary_claims,
title = {Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences},
author = {Tressoldi, Patrizio E},
year = {2011},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychology},
doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00117},
}