ArticleFrontiers in psychology2011
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: the case of non-local perception, a classical and bayesian review of evidences.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biological Systems Depend on Communication Over Distances: A Review of the Fundamental Mechanisms, Associated challenges, and the Potential Effect of the Constrained Disorder Principle.Acta biotheoretica · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Follow-up on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) remote viewing experimentsBrain and behavior · 2023Article
- Revisiting the evidence for physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection.Lancet (London, England) · 2021Article
- Research on Intercessory Prayer: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations.Journal of religion and health · 2017Review
- Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel) · 2016Article
- A call for an open, informed study of all aspects of consciousness.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2014Article
- Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2014Review
- Retro-priming, priming, and double testing: psi and replication in a test-retest design.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2014Article
- Getting comfortable with near death experiences. Out of one's mind or beyond the brain? The challenge of interpreting near-death experiences.Missouri medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Starting from the famous phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," we will present the evidence supporting the concept that human visual perception may have non-local properties, in other words, that it may operate beyond the space and time constraints of sensory organs, in order to discuss which criteria can be used to define evidence as extraordinary. This evidence has been obtained from seven databases which are related to six different protocols used to test the reality and the functioning of non-local perception, analyzed using both a frequentist and a new Bayesian meta-analysis statistical procedure. According to a frequentist meta-analysis, the null hypothesis can be rejected for all six protocols even if the effect sizes range from 0.007 to 0.28. According to Bayesian meta-analysis, the Bayes factors provides strong evidence to support the alternative hypothesis (H1) over the null hypothesis (H0), but only for three out of the six protocols. We will discuss whether quantitative psychology can contribute to defining the criteria for the acceptance of new scientific ideas in order to avoid the inconclusive controversies between supporters and opponents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.