Contents
Introduction
Extrasensory Perception (ESP) refers to the ability to acquire information without relying on the known five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell). It encompasses various phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis. ESP challenges conventional understanding of perception and cognition, raising questions about the boundaries of human experience and the nature of consciousness.
According to APA, Extrasensory Perception (ESP) is alleged awareness of external events by other means than the known sensory channels. It includes telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition. It is also called paranormal cognition.
It coined by German physician Gustav Pagenstecher (1855–1942) in his 1924 text, Aussersinnlicher wahrnehmung (Extrasensory Perception); the English term was adopted in 1934 by Joseph B. Rhine]
Historical Background of Extrasensory Perception
The concept of Extrasensory Perception, the ability to gain information beyond the known physical senses, has deep historical roots across different cultures and civilizations. While modern science still debates the validity of ESP, similar abilities have been depicted in ancient texts, myths, and spiritual traditions for centuries.
From ancient Greece to Eastern philosophies, stories of individuals with telepathic powers, clairvoyant abilities, and prophetic dreams abound. The development of ESP as a scientific subject of inquiry, however, emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the formation of the field of parapsychology. Researchers began exploring these phenomena more systematically, trying to quantify and study them using experimental designs. Here’s a closer look at the historical evolution of ESP, focusing on the major early investigations into telepathy and clairvoyance.
Early Investigations of Telepathy
Telepathy, the supposed direct transmission of thoughts or information between individuals without using any sensory channels, was one of the first forms of ESP to be scientifically studied. Frederick Myers and Joseph B. Rhine were pivotal figures in these early investigations.
Frederick Myers and the Society for Psychical Research
Frederick Myers, a British poet and psychologist, was a key figure in establishing the systematic study of paranormal phenomena. Myers co-founded the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in 1882, one of the earliest organizations dedicated to investigating paranormal claims, including telepathy. Myers and the SPR conducted numerous case studies on telepathy, often focusing on spontaneous telepathic events, such as individuals reporting they had received a mental image or thought from another person at a distance, without any form of communication. These studies, while anecdotal and often relying on personal testimonies, helped frame telepathy as a phenomenon worth investigating scientifically (Irwin & Watt, 2007).
Logo of Society for Psychical Research
Myers’ work laid the foundation for more formal experimentation, though the methods were initially criticized for lacking scientific rigor. One challenge was the inability to control variables that might explain telepathic claims through normal sensory cues, coincidence, or bias.
Joseph B. Rhine and Duke University
In the 1930s, Joseph B. Rhine, an American psychologist at Duke University, brought a more experimental approach to the study of ESP, particularly telepathy. Rhine sought to test telepathic claims under controlled conditions, moving beyond the anecdotal evidence that had characterized previous research. He developed experiments using Zener cards—special cards with simple, distinct symbols (such as a circle, star, or wavy lines)—to test whether participants could “read” the symbol on a hidden card through telepathic means.
Dr Joseph Banks “J.B.” Rhine
In a typical Zener card experiment, one individual, the “sender,” would focus on a card, while the “receiver” would attempt to mentally perceive the image. Rhine’s early results suggested that some individuals could guess the cards at rates higher than chance, providing tentative support for telepathy. However, subsequent research raised concerns about experimental bias, inadequate controls, and the replicability of Rhine’s findings (Irwin, 2004). While his work inspired continued investigation into telepathy, the scientific community remained largely skeptical of his conclusions.
Early Investigations of Clairvoyance
Clairvoyance, the ability to perceive distant or unseen events or objects, also attracted early scientific attention. Like telepathy, this form of ESP was studied both through anecdotal accounts and controlled experiments.
Clairvoyance and Card Guessing Experiments
In addition to using Zener cards to test telepathy, Rhine and other early researchers used them to explore clairvoyance—the ability to perceive information without any external stimuli or sensory input. Instead of a sender transmitting the card’s symbol, clairvoyance experiments typically involved participants trying to guess the symbol on a hidden card without receiving any hints or cues. While some participants performed above chance levels, the results were inconsistent, and the same methodological critiques that plagued telepathy experiments—such as lack of replication and experimenter bias—also applied to clairvoyance research (Beloff, 1993).
Remote Viewing Studies
Another method used to investigate clairvoyance was remote viewing, a process in which individuals attempt to describe or “view” a distant location or object without any prior knowledge. Early studies, particularly those conducted in the latter half of the 20th century, yielded mixed results. Some experiments produced promising findings, with participants accurately describing remote locations or objects, but these studies were often marred by issues of subjectivity and inconsistent results (Radin, 1997). Despite these challenges, remote viewing became a major focus of parapsychological research, with government programs such as the U.S. Stargate Project exploring its potential for intelligence gathering.
The modern study of ESP, particularly telepathy and clairvoyance, emerged from the work of early researchers like Frederick Myers and Joseph B. Rhine, who sought to apply scientific methods to phenomena long associated with folklore and spiritual traditions. Their experiments, from spontaneous telepathy case studies to Zener card tests and remote viewing trials, laid the foundation for contemporary parapsychology. While their findings sparked significant interest, the scientific community has remained largely skeptical due to issues related to experimental design, replication, and statistical interpretation. Nevertheless, the historical exploration of ESP continues to influence ongoing research and remains a fascinating chapter in the study of human consciousness.
Types of Extrasensory Perception
Extrasensory Perception refers to the ability to acquire information beyond the known physical senses, implying the existence of mental faculties that bypass ordinary sensory mechanisms. ESP has fascinated researchers and laypeople alike, contributing to its controversial status within both scientific and popular realms. While ESP is still largely unverified in mainstream science, its study continues within the field of parapsychology, and various types of ESP have been categorized based on the nature of the information received or perceived. Below, we explore the four major types of ESP: Telepathy, Clairvoyance, Precognition, and Psychokinesis, including key experiments associated with each.
Telepathy
Telepathy, the supposed ability to transfer information from one person’s mind to another without relying on known sensory channels, has been one of the most investigated forms of ESP. Telepathy has been tested through controlled experiments, with varying degrees of success.
- Zener Card Experiments
One of the most famous early experiments in telepathy was conducted using Zener cards, which were designed by psychologist Karl Zener and popularized by Joseph B. Rhine, a pioneer in parapsychology. The cards contain five distinct symbols (a circle, a cross, wavy lines, a square, and a star), and participants were asked to guess the symbol on a card that they could not see.
Zener cards
In a typical experiment, one individual (the “sender”) would concentrate on the card while another (the “receiver”) would try to identify it telepathically. Rhine’s early results showed statistical deviations from chance, leading him to believe that telepathy was a real phenomenon. However, over time, methodological flaws and replication issues cast doubt on these findings (Irwin & Watt, 2007). More recent research on telepathy continues, though consistent, reliable evidence remains elusive.
- Remote Viewing
Another telepathic experiment design is “remote viewing,” where participants attempt to describe or draw a distant location or object without any prior knowledge of it. The results of remote viewing experiments have been mixed. While some participants have claimed success, the scientific community remains skeptical due to issues of subjectivity and interpretation in the results. Some research programs, such as the U.S. government’s Stargate Project during the Cold War, explored the use of remote viewing in intelligence gathering, though it was eventually discontinued due to inconclusive evidence (Targ & Puthoff, 1977).
Clairvoyance
Clairvoyance refers to perceiving information about an object, person, or event without any direct sensory contact. This ability contrasts with telepathy, as the information is not transferred from one mind to another, but rather is perceived directly.
- Ganzfeld Experiments
The Ganzfeld experiment, designed in the 1970s, is one of the most well-known attempts to test clairvoyance. Participants are placed in a sensory deprivation environment—a dimly lit room, with halved ping-pong balls over their eyes and white noise played through headphones—to reduce distractions. During the experiment, a “sender” concentrates on transmitting information, such as an image, while the “receiver” attempts to perceive the transmitted information. Some studies showed modest results suggesting that participants performed better than chance at identifying the target images, but these findings have been controversial, with critics citing issues like experimenter bias and lack of proper controls (Bem & Honorton, 1994). Despite the mixed results, the Ganzfeld experiment remains a cornerstone of parapsychological research.
Precognition
Precognition refers to the ability to foresee or predict future events. Unlike clairvoyance and telepathy, which deal with present or remote information, precognition focuses on events that have not yet occurred.
- Dream Studies
Dreams have long been thought to contain precognitive elements, with people reporting that they dreamt of future events before they happened. Researchers have attempted to test this phenomenon in controlled environments. For instance, some studies have had participants report their dreams, and then researchers compare these reports to actual events that unfold later. The famous case of J.W. Dunne, an engineer who believed his dreams predicted future events, inspired a line of research into this phenomenon (Irwin, 2004). However, results remain controversial, with skeptics arguing that precognitive dreams can often be explained by coincidence, selective memory, or subjective interpretation.
Psychokinesis (Telekinesis)
Psychokinesis (PK), or telekinesis, is the supposed ability to influence physical objects with the power of the mind. Unlike the other forms of ESP, which involve acquiring information, psychokinesis is the ability to affect the external world.
- Random Number Generators
One of the most common methods used to test psychokinesis is by using Random Number Generators (RNGs). In these experiments, participants attempt to influence the outcome of a machine designed to produce random sequences of numbers through mental concentration alone. One notable research program on psychokinesis was the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program, which ran experiments for nearly three decades. Some results suggested slight statistical deviations from chance when participants attempted to influence RNG outcomes (Jahn & Dunne, 2005). However, as with other forms of ESP research, critics argue that these deviations can be attributed to statistical anomalies or biases in the experimental design, making the existence of psychokinesis far from conclusive.
Theoretical Foundations of Extrasensory Perception
The study of Extrasensory Perception has led researchers to explore various theoretical perspectives, as conventional scientific models struggle to explain such phenomena. ESP, which encompasses abilities like telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis, exists at the intersection of psychology, neuroscience, and physics. While empirical evidence for ESP remains controversial and inconsistent, several theoretical frameworks have been proposed to explain its occurrence. These include quantum mechanics, information theory, and cognitive and neural mechanisms. Each of these perspectives attempts to provide a basis for how ESP could be understood, though none have yet garnered widespread scientific acceptance.
Quantum Mechanics and Extrasensory Perception
Quantum mechanics, the branch of physics that deals with subatomic particles, has often been invoked to explain ESP, particularly through the principle of quantum entanglement. Entanglement refers to a situation where two particles become linked in such a way that the state of one particle instantly influences the state of another, regardless of distance. Some researchers hypothesize that this phenomenon could provide a model for understanding how information is transferred between minds in telepathy, or how individuals might perceive events across vast distances in clairvoyance (Radin, 1997).
However, while the idea is intriguing, it remains speculative. Quantum mechanics operates at the level of subatomic particles, and there is little empirical evidence to suggest that the same principles apply to human consciousness or ESP phenomena. Many physicists and neuroscientists argue that trying to bridge the gap between quantum physics and consciousness is premature, as there is no direct evidence linking quantum mechanics to cognitive processes (Rosenblum & Kuttner, 2011). Nonetheless, quantum explanations of ESP persist in parapsychological discourse, primarily because of the mysterious and non-localized nature of entanglement, which seems analogous to the non-locality of ESP experiences.
Information Theory and Extrasensory Perception
Another theoretical approach to ESP comes from information theory, which explores how information is transmitted, stored, and processed. Some proponents of ESP argue that it could represent an unconventional form of information transfer that bypasses known sensory pathways. This view suggests that ESP may involve some yet-to-be-discovered form of communication or energy transfer, akin to wireless transmission of data but not reliant on physical channels such as light or sound (Beloff, 1993).
In this context, ESP might be viewed as a type of non-local information processing, where data is received by the mind or brain without following typical sensory routes. Information theory postulates that ESP could involve hidden dimensions or channels of information, beyond those currently understood by neuroscience or psychology. While this perspective opens the door to a broader interpretation of perception, it has yet to be substantiated by experimental data. The challenge for this theory is to offer a mechanism for how information is transferred and processed by the brain without traditional sensory inputs, a gap that remains unexplained.
Cognitive and Neural Mechanisms
From a psychological and neuroscientific standpoint, some theories suggest that ESP phenomena may not be paranormal at all but rather a byproduct of normal cognitive processes like pattern recognition, intuition, and unconscious processing. Cognitive psychology explores how the brain processes and interprets information, often unconsciously, allowing for rapid decision-making and problem-solving (Kahneman, 2011). Some researchers speculate that ESP could represent heightened or more efficient forms of these unconscious processes.
For example, telepathy might simply be an advanced form of intuition or “mind-reading,” in which an individual unconsciously picks up on subtle cues like body language or emotional expressions that provide information about another person’s thoughts. Clairvoyance, similarly, might be explained by an enhanced ability to recognize patterns in data, making accurate predictions about distant events based on prior knowledge or subconscious awareness. In this sense, ESP would not involve any supernatural ability but rather an extension of the brain’s capacity to synthesize and analyze information rapidly and outside conscious awareness (Irwin & Watt, 2007).
Neuroscience adds another layer to this explanation by suggesting that ESP could be tied to neural mechanisms, such as those involved in memory, perception, and decision-making. The brain’s ability to process large amounts of information without conscious awareness may lead individuals to experience ESP-like phenomena, where they feel they “just knew” something, when in fact it was their brain’s ability to piece together information from their surroundings and previous experiences (Damasio, 1994). This cognitive explanation downplays the paranormal nature of ESP and situates it firmly within the realm of human cognitive capabilities.
The theoretical foundations of ESP remain diverse and speculative, reflecting the challenges of studying phenomena that appear to transcend conventional scientific understanding. Quantum mechanics offers a tantalizing but unproven framework for explaining non-local information transfer, while information theory suggests that ESP might represent a form of communication or perception yet to be discovered. Cognitive and neural mechanisms, on the other hand, provide a more grounded explanation, suggesting that ESP might be an extension of normal mental processes such as intuition and unconscious cognition.
Empirical Research
Empirical research on Extrasensory Perception has a long and controversial history. ESP encompasses phenomena such as telepathy (mind-to-mind communication), clairvoyance (perceiving distant events or objects), precognition (foreseeing future events), and psychokinesis (influencing physical objects through mental effort). The scientific investigation of ESP dates back to the early 20th century, with researchers attempting to empirically validate these claims. Over the decades, numerous studies have been conducted, producing mixed results. While some studies have reported positive findings, others have struggled to replicate these results, or have suggested alternative explanations, casting doubt on the validity of ESP phenomena.
Methodological Challenges in Extrasensory Perception Research
One of the primary reasons for the ongoing debate surrounding ESP is the significant methodological challenges that plague research in this field. These challenges undermine the reliability and replicability of results, contributing to the mixed conclusions drawn from different studies.
Experimental Design Issues
ESP experiments frequently face criticisms related to experimental design. Common issues include:
- Lack of Control: In many ESP studies, it can be difficult to control for all variables that might influence the results. For example, in telepathy experiments, ensuring that no sensory cues are inadvertently transmitted between participants is essential. Yet, subtle cues like body language or tone of voice may unconsciously influence participants, leading to falsely positive results. These inadvertent transmissions, known as “sensory leakage,” complicate the interpretation of positive findings (Irwin & Watt, 2007).
- Small Sample Sizes: Many ESP experiments involve small sample sizes, making it difficult to generalize results to the broader population. Small samples increase the likelihood of chance findings and reduce the statistical power of studies. Consequently, results may appear significant in small, isolated studies, but fail to replicate in larger, more robust experiments (Hyman, 2010).
- Replication Difficulties: Replication is a cornerstone of scientific validity, yet many ESP experiments that initially report positive results fail to replicate in subsequent studies. The lack of consistent, repeatable outcomes is a significant challenge, raising concerns about the reliability of the findings (Alcock, 2011).
2. Statistical Anomalies
In many cases, positive findings in ESP research are attributed to statistical anomalies rather than genuine effects. For example:
- Type I Errors: In statistical testing, a Type I error occurs when a researcher falsely concludes that there is an effect when none actually exists. Given the high number of ESP studies conducted, it is possible that some of the positive findings are the result of statistical “noise” rather than a true effect. This is especially problematic when studies use multiple statistical tests without proper correction for the increased risk of false positives (Radin, 1997).
- Selective Reporting: Another issue in ESP research is the possibility of selective reporting, where studies with positive results are more likely to be published than those with negative or null results. This creates a publication bias that can give the illusion of stronger support for ESP than actually exists. Some researchers have also been accused of “p-hacking,” or manipulating data and analyses to achieve statistically significant results (Schmeidler, 1988).
- Meta-Analyses of Extrasensory Perception Research
Meta-analyses—statistical techniques that combine the results of multiple studies—have been conducted to evaluate the overall evidence for ESP. These reviews aim to assess whether the positive findings in individual studies hold up when considered across a larger body of research. The results of these meta-analyses, however, have been varied, reflecting the complexity and controversy surrounding ESP research.
Positive Findings in Meta-Analyses
Some meta-analyses suggest that ESP studies, when pooled together, show a small but statistically significant effect. For instance, one notable meta-analysis by Charles Honorton and Daryl Bem in the 1990s examined “Ganzfeld” experiments—tests in which participants were placed in sensory-deprivation conditions to minimize distractions and asked to receive information from a distant sender. Their analysis suggested that participants in these studies were able to correctly identify target images at a rate above chance, providing some support for ESP (Bem & Honorton, 1994).
Honorton and Bem’s meta-analysis reported a “hit rate” in Ganzfeld experiments that was higher than expected by chance, suggesting that some individuals might possess genuine ESP abilities. These findings were viewed as promising by some parapsychologists, prompting further research in this area.
Critiques of Positive Meta-Analyses
However, critics of ESP research have raised several concerns about these positive findings. For example, skeptical researchers have pointed out that the results of Honorton and Bem’s meta-analysis might be influenced by methodological flaws in the original studies they reviewed, including issues with randomization, sensory leakage, and inadequate controls (Hyman, 2010). Moreover, critics argue that the small effect sizes reported in meta-analyses are so marginal that they could be attributed to statistical artifacts or biases, rather than genuine paranormal phenomena (Alcock, 2011).
Inconclusive or Negative Findings in Meta-Analyses
Other meta-analyses have produced more skeptical conclusions, arguing that the evidence for ESP is either inconclusive or attributable to methodological issues. For instance, a comprehensive meta-analysis by psychologist Ray Hyman reviewed the Ganzfeld studies and concluded that the results did not support the existence of ESP once methodological flaws were accounted for (Hyman, 2010). Hyman argued that when properly controlled for issues such as sensory leakage and experimenter bias, the positive effects of ESP disappear, leading him to reject the hypothesis that ESP is a real phenomenon.
Further meta-analyses have found that while some studies report positive findings, the results are inconsistent and fail to meet the rigorous standards of scientific evidence. Additionally, the replication crisis in ESP research—where studies fail to reproduce positive findings—has further eroded confidence in the validity of these effects (Wiseman, 2011).
Criticisms and Controversies
The field of Extrasensory Perception research has been the subject of significant debate and criticism within the scientific community. ESP includes phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis, all of which claim to involve forms of perception or influence that go beyond the known limits of human sensory capabilities. Despite some intriguing results in individual studies, ESP research has struggled to gain widespread acceptance in mainstream science. This section will delve into two of the most prominent criticisms: skepticism regarding the methodological rigor of ESP research, and the classification of ESP as pseudoscience.
- Skepticism: A Lack of Theoretical Foundation and Methodological Rigor
Lack of Theoretical Foundation
One of the primary criticisms skeptics raise against ESP research is its lack of a solid theoretical foundation. Unlike established areas of science, ESP lacks a coherent and testable framework that can explain how extrasensory phenomena occur. Mainstream science is rooted in theories that are supported by empirical evidence and can be tested, refined, and occasionally falsified.
In contrast, ESP theories often remain vague and speculative. For instance, some researchers have attempted to explain ESP phenomena through quantum mechanics, particularly the concept of “quantum entanglement,” where two particles can influence each other instantaneously over long distances. However, such explanations are highly speculative, and there is no empirical evidence to support a direct link between quantum physics and ESP phenomena (Alcock, 2011).
Methodological Errors and Bias
Skeptics also argue that positive results in ESP research are often the product of methodological flaws or biases rather than genuine paranormal phenomena. In scientific research, the design of experiments and the rigor with which they are conducted are crucial for drawing valid conclusions. Critics have pointed out several methodological issues in ESP studies:
- Sensory Leakage: One of the most common criticisms is that some ESP studies fail to adequately control for sensory leakage, where participants inadvertently receive information through normal sensory means rather than via extrasensory perception. This issue is particularly relevant in telepathy experiments, where participants might unconsciously pick up on cues from others, such as body language or subtle environmental hints (Hyman, 2010).
- Lack of Replication: Replication is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry. For a finding to be considered reliable, it must be consistently replicated across different experiments and researchers. ESP research, however, has struggled with replication. While some studies have produced positive results, these results often fail to be replicated by independent researchers using the same methods. This lack of reproducibility has raised questions about the reliability and validity of ESP findings (Wiseman, 2011).
- Experimenter Bias: Another methodological concern is the potential for experimenter bias, where the expectations of the researcher influence the outcome of the study. In ESP research, researchers who believe in the existence of paranormal phenomena may unintentionally affect the way they design, conduct, or interpret their experiments. This bias can skew the results and lead to false positives (Schmeidler, 1988).
Advocacy for Stringent Standards
Skeptics advocate for more stringent standards in ESP research. They argue that, due to the extraordinary nature of the claims being made, the evidence must be extraordinarily strong to justify belief in ESP. This includes rigorous experimental controls, larger sample sizes, better statistical analyses, and successful replication by independent researchers. Only when ESP studies consistently meet these standards, skeptics argue, can the field be taken seriously by mainstream science (Hyman, 2010).
- Classification of ESP as Pseudoscience
ESP is often classified as pseudoscience by critics, a label that stems from the field’s failure to adhere to the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. Pseudoscience refers to claims, beliefs, or practices that are presented as scientific but lack empirical support, consistency, and falsifiability—key hallmarks of genuine science.
Lack of Reproducible Evidence
One of the main reasons ESP is considered pseudoscience is the lack of reproducible evidence supporting its existence. In science, a hypothesis must be tested and retested in various settings to confirm its validity. If a phenomenon exists, it should produce consistent results across different studies and researchers. However, as noted earlier, ESP research has been plagued by replication issues. Studies that initially report positive findings often fail to replicate when tested by independent researchers or under more controlled conditions. This inconsistency is a major reason why ESP has not been accepted by the broader scientific community (Alcock, 2011).
The Problem of Falsifiability
Falsifiability, a concept introduced by philosopher Karl Popper, refers to the idea that for a theory to be scientific, it must be possible to prove it false. A theory that cannot be falsified—that is, a theory that cannot be tested in such a way that it could potentially be proven wrong—is not considered scientifically valid. Critics argue that many claims in ESP are unfalsifiable. For instance, when ESP experiments fail to show positive results, proponents often attribute this failure to factors such as the participants’ lack of belief or mental distractions, rather than flaws in the theory itself. This tendency to explain away negative results makes ESP difficult to falsify and, therefore, pseudoscientific (Hyman, 2010).
Inconsistencies in Theoretical Explanations
Another hallmark of pseudoscience is theoretical inconsistency. While scientific theories evolve over time based on new evidence, they generally offer a coherent framework that explains a wide range of phenomena. In contrast, ESP research often lacks such consistency. Different researchers propose different mechanisms for how ESP might work, ranging from quantum physics to unconscious cognitive processes, without a unified theoretical foundation that can be empirically tested. This lack of theoretical clarity further undermines the scientific credibility of ESP (Wiseman, 2011).
ESP and the Scientific Method
Critics argue that ESP research often deviates from the scientific method in key ways. For example, some ESP studies may involve ad-hoc explanations for negative results or use post-hoc data analyses to find patterns after the fact. This contrasts with the scientific method, which involves formulating hypotheses before collecting data and testing them under controlled conditions. The frequent use of retrospective data analysis in ESP research raises concerns about “data mining” or “p-hacking,” where researchers search for patterns in the data that may not be genuinely meaningful (Schmeidler, 1988).
Conclusion
Extrasensory Perception remains a fascinating and controversial area of study. While empirical evidence for ESP is mixed and often criticized, the exploration of such phenomena challenges our understanding of human perception and consciousness. Continued research and interdisciplinary approaches may eventually shed light on the nature of ESP and its place within the broader scientific framework.
References
Alcock, J. (2011). Parapsychology: Science or Magic? A Psychological Perspective. Pergamon Press.
Beloff, J. (1993). Parapsychology: A Concise History. St. Martin’s Press.
Bem, D. J., & Honorton, C. (1994). “Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer.” Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 4-18.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Hyman, R. (2010). “The Ganzfeld Psi Experiment: A Critical Appraisal.” Journal of Parapsychology, 54(4), 299-314.
Irwin, H. J., & Watt, C. A. (2007). An Introduction to Parapsychology (5th ed.). McFarland & Company.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. HarperOne.
Rosenblum, B., & Kuttner, F. (2011). Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Schmeidler, G. R. (1988). “Psi Research Methodology: A Re-examination.” Journal of Parapsychology, 52(3), 212-222.
Wiseman, R. (2011). “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose: Investigating Psi and the Replication Problem.” Skeptical Inquirer, 35(2), 36-39.