Comprehensive review of ESP?

[ChristineR]

Can someone point me to a comprehensive meta analysis of (hopefully) ALL the published ESP studies that points out which ones had negative resulsts, which ones had positive results, and how it is believed the cheating/fudging/bad randomization was done?

When I google ESP meta all I get is garbage.:mad:

[Anti_Hypeman]

The US government spent millions on remote viewing research and came up with nothing.

[blutoski]

Can someone point me to a comprehensive meta analysis of (hopefully) ALL the published ESP studies that points out which ones had negative resulsts, which ones had positive results, and how it is believed the cheating/fudging/bad randomization was done?

When I google ESP meta all I get is garbage.:mad:


I'd start with Dr. Blackmore's essay: "Why I have given up"

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm

[Ersby]

A meta-analysis of all ESP tests doesn't exist.

For something more specific (about the ganzfeld, ahem) you could do worse than look at this.

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/ganzfeld2.htm

[PixyMisa]

Psst. Hoist. One is hoist by own one's petard, not hung.

[Soapy Sam]

I think one is actually hoist "with" it, but I'm not sure why.

(Mine dropped off some years ago due to lack of use.)

[NeilC]

A petard is a bomb is it not?

So one might be hoisted aloft by it's unexpectedly early detonation.

I can see how hanging comes into it?