Ray Hyman
Ray Hyman
Ray Hyman is a research psychologist and prominent skeptical voice in parapsychology who has shaped methodological standards in the field through sustained critical engagement with experimental psi research, particularly ganzfeld studies.
The Hyman-Honorton collaboration
Hyman is best known in parapsychology for an unusual collaborative moment: in 1986, after years of public methodological debate with parapsychologist Charles Honorton, Hyman co-authored a joint statement with him. Rather than continue the back-and-forth critique, the two agreed to work together and produced a co-authored communiqué acknowledging what the ganzfeld database showed and laying out standards for future research [1][5].
In that 1986 Joint Communiqué, Hyman and Honorton jointly concluded that the ganzfeld database showed an overall significant effect not reasonably explained by selective reporting or multiple analysis, while continuing to disagree over whether that effect was evidence for psi [1]. The statement then issued specific recommendations on randomization, judging and feedback procedures, multiple analysis, and other methodological controls to guide subsequent work [1][5].
Hyman’s role as methodological critic
Beyond the collaboration, Hyman has maintained a critical position on psi evidence in the decades since. In 1994, he published a detailed response to Bem and Honorton’s autoganzfeld results, arguing that apparent consistencies with earlier parapsychological research were “more apparent than real” and addressing potential sources of artifact in the judging procedure [4]. In 2010, commenting on a meta-analysis by Storm and colleagues, Hyman argued that meta-analyses of psi studies “conceal more than they reveal,” contending that individual ganzfeld and autoganzfeld databases “clearly do not form coherent collections” and that heterogeneity among studies had been masked [2].
For deeper context on the methodological dispute and the significance of the 1986 agreement, see the ESP-Nexus page on Hyman–Honorton Joint Communiqué and Methodological Standards and the Ganzfeld Debate.
References
- Hyman, R., & Honorton, C. (2019). A Joint Communiqué: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy. Journal of Parapsychology, 82, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.30891/jopar.2018s.01.09
- Hyman, R. (2010). Meta-analysis that conceals more than it reveals: Comment on Storm et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019676
- Hyman, R. (2008). Anomalous Cognition? A Second Perspective. Skeptical Inquirer, 32, 40–43.
- Hyman, R. (1994). Anomaly or artifact? Comments on Bem and Honorton. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.115.1.19
- Hyman, R., & Honorton, C. (1986). A Joint Communique: The Psi Ganzfeld Controversy. Journal of Parapsychology, 50, 351–364.
More questions answered
- Pool the effect sizes across every ganzfeld study you hold and compare your number to the published Storm and Tressoldi meta-analyses—do they agree?
- Has the effect size for PK data increased in the last 50 years?
- Tell me about the clairvoyance work of the last 50 years
- What trends can you see in precognition research?
- What trends can you see in ESP research in the last 50 years?
- What are parapsychology's current arguments to justify that the phenomena are real and should be taken seriously?