Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: The Case of Non-Local Perception, a Classical and Bayesian Review of Evidences

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00117

PMC full text:

Front Psychol. 2011; 2: 117.

Published online 2011 Jun 10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00117

Copyright/License ►Request permission to reuse: Copyright © 2011 Tressoldi.
This is an open-access article subject to a non-exclusive license between the authors and Frontiers Media SA, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited and other Frontiers conditions are complied with.

Table 1

Descriptive and statistical results of the five meta-analysis with all raw data.

Meta-analysis	N. studies	N. participants	Fixed ES (0.95 CI)	Z	Random ES (0.95 CI)	Z	Bayes factor (H1/H0, 2-tailed)	File drawer effect
Ganzfeld¹	108	3650	0.12 (0.11–0.14)	19.36	0.13 (0.09–0.17)	6.39	18861051*	357§
ASC¹	16	427	0.12 (0.09–0.15)	8.63	0.11 (0.03–0.19)	2.86	0.04764247	13§
Anticipatory responses²	37	1064	0.26 (0.19–0.37)	8.7	0.28 (0.20–0.32)	6.07	2.891308e + 13	954#
Normal SC¹ (free response)	14	1026	−0.015 (−0.03–0.005)	−1.48	−0.03 (−0.06–0.002)	−1.84	0.02924606	–
Normal SC³ (forced choice)	72	69726	0.007 (0.006–0.007)	16.2	0.011 (0.006–0.015)	4.88	0.003162905*	187§

¹Storm et al. (2010); ²Mossbridge et al. (submitted); ³Storm et al. (submitted); *one study excluded because N participants = 1; § = Darlington and Hayes's (2000) formula; # = Orwin's (1983) fail-safe N.