Abstract
(1) THE issue on which I chose to argue1 was clearly stated in my first paragraph. Taking the psychical research data (that is, the residuum when fraud and incompetence are excluded), I tried to show that these now threw more doubt upon existing presuppositions in the theory of probability than in the theory of communication. Thus, though not doubting the validity of some of the experimental work by accepted standards, I was led to question the validity of one of the accepted standards.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nature, 172, 154 (1953).
Coover, John E., “Experiments in Psychical Research” (Stanford Univ. Press, 1917). Richmond, Nigel, J. Soc. Psych. Res., 36, 577 (1952). Forwald, H., J. Parapsychol., 16, 282 (1952).
Soal, S. G., and Goldney, K. M., Proc. Soc. Psych. Res., 47, 22 (1943).
Soal, S. G., Proc. Soc. Psych. Res., 46, 152 (1942).
Fisher, Ronald A., “The Design of Experiments” (London, 1947).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BROWN, G. “Statistical Significance in Psychical Research”. Nature 172, 594–595 (1953). https://doi.org/10.1038/172594b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/172594b0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
