Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, USA.
Psychol Bull. 2010 Jul;136(4):486-90. doi: 10.1037/a0019676.
Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio (2010) rely on meta-analyses to justify their claim that the evidence for psi is consistent and reliable. They manufacture apparent homogeneity and consistency by eliminating many outliers and combining databases whose combined effect sizes are not significantly different-even though these combined effect sizes consist of arbitrary and meaningless composites. At best, their study provides a recipe for conducting a replicable extrasensory perception experiment. This recipe includes following a design that employs the standard ganzfeld psi methodology and uses "selected" subjects. An experiment, having adequate power and that meets these criteria, has already been conducted and failed to produce evidence for psi. Parapsychology will achieve scientific acceptability only when it provides a positive theory with evidence based on independently replicable evidence. This is something it has yet to achieve after more than a century of trying.
斯托姆、特雷索利和迪里西奥（2010）依赖荟萃分析来证明他们的观点，即超自然现象的证据是一致和可靠的。他们通过消除许多异常值并合并数据库来制造出明显的同质性和一致性，而这些数据库的合并效应大小并没有显著差异——尽管这些合并效应大小由任意和无意义的组合构成。在最好的情况下，他们的研究为进行可复制的超感官知觉实验提供了一个方案。这个方案包括遵循采用标准全视野心理物理法并使用“精选”对象的设计。一个具有足够效力并符合这些标准的实验已经进行过，但未能为超自然现象提供证据。只有当它提供了一个基于独立可复制证据的积极理论时，超心理学才能获得科学的认可。这是它在一个多世纪的尝试之后还没有实现的事情。
