I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means: A Response to Alcock and Reber's “Searching for the Impossible: Parapsychology’s Elusive Quest

Journal of Scientific Exploration 33 (4):617-622 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper presents a simple, neutral, unbiased framework for assessing scientific methodologies that serves as both a positive contribution to the literature and an implicit critique of Reber and Alcock’s recent paper in the American Psychologist (2019). This is followed by an explicit critique of some of their key claims.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

"The data are irrelevant": Response to Reber & Alcock.Etzel Cardeña - 2019 - Journal of Scientific Exploration 33 (4):593-598.
Blind Watchers of PSI: A Rebuttal of Reber and Alcock (2019).Bernard Carr - 2019 - Journal of Scientific Exploration 33 (4):643-660.
Are there any “communications anomalies”?John T. Sanders - 1987 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10 (4):607.
Science, pseudoscience, and anomaly.James E. Alcock - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):303-303.
On Function Of Word Order In English And Serbian.Slobodanka Kitic - 2002 - Facta Universitatis, Series: Linguistics and Literature 9 (2):303-312.
Zweck und Mittel. Zur Klärung einiger Grundbegriffe der Handlungstheorie.Theodor Ebert - 1977 - Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie 2 (2):21-39.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-06-16

Downloads
150 (#121,078)

6 months
60 (#69,764)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andrew Westcombe
University of New South Wales

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations