No abstract since it is a Reply to a Comment.

Scientific anomalistics sees itself as a content-determined, and delimited area of science which is committed to the application of appropriate scientific methodology, as well as generally accepted, and necessary, scientific control mechanisms. The specification of research subjects is not the result of assignment to groups of phenomena of specific scientific (sub-) disciplines, but of the ascription of an anomalistic character which (at first) makes these phenomena, or experiences, a subject of anomalistic research. Accordingly, anomalistics is not characterized by its own (...) specific methodology but is oriented by the requirements of the respectively concerned discipline(s) (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, science of history, etc.). For a long time, (natural) science approaches have been considered paradigmatic for anomalistic research and for parapsychological research in particular. However, during the last few decades, social-scientific approaches and qualitative research methods have become increasingly important as supplementary and alternative methods. As a result, single case studies and the investigation of ostensible spontaneous psi phenomena have lost their often premature reputation of being unscientific. Qualitative research methodology, which is used predominantly in social and cultural sciences as well as in anthropology, now represents a useful supplement to quantitative approaches. In some cases, and for several research questions, it proves to be ultimately superior, because one can avoid the considerable reduction of complexity which is obligatory for quantitative methods. Therefore, the research, as well as the researchers, can come much closer to living-world manifestations of anomalistic phenomena and experiences than is the case with the relatively artificial situation in laboratory experiments. As we are trying to demonstrate in our paper, anomalistic research should be conducted in a reflective manner under the described paradigm of reflexive anomalistics. The term signifies a social scientific informed approach to anomalistic phenomena which is aware of (a) the epistemic particularities of the phenomena under research, (b) the precarious cultural (media, science policy) framework conditions of this research, and (c) the areas of tension between subjective evidence, scientific proof and social discourse. These factors have to be systematically taken into consideration when developing scientific research questions as well as methodological approaches. (shrink)

This paper reports on a correlation study between human intention and the output of a binary random number generator. The study comprises a total of 288 million bits from 40 equal sessions, each on a different human participant. Each participant spent 2 hours of time attempting to “influence” the outcome of the random number generator according to a pre-selected intention. During this time the participant was provided feedback on his/her performance by an analog mechanical display, with the needle of a (...) galvanometric instrument moving to the left- or right-hand side of its current position, according to the instantaneous output of the random number generator. The data analysis procedure was defined before looking at the data. Out of four pre-defined analyses, one was found to be significant with a probability p = 0.0366 that this result occurred by chance under a null hypothesis. The combined analysis of the four individual analyses is found to be not significant, with p = 0.2655 to have occurred by chance under a null hypothesis. (shrink)

Mind-matter interaction experiments have been progressing from targeting simple bias of random number generators to correlation studies between psychological and physical variables, carried out over multiple combinations of these. This paper reports on a new correlation study between human intention and the output of a binary random number generator. The study comprises a total of 720000 bits from 20 equal sessions each on a different human participant. Each participant spent 1 hour of time attempting to ’influence’ the outcome of the (...) random number generator according to a pre-selected intention. During this time the participant was provided feedback on his/her performance by an analog mechanical display, with the needle of a galvanometric instrument moving to the left or right hand side of its current position, according to the instantaneous output of the random number generator. Psychological variables were obtained from the participants by a hardware dial ahead of each individual run and by a questionnaire before the participants first experimental session. Three types of data analysis were defined and tested before looking at the data, resembling a blind analysis technique. The first analysis looks at the distribution of hit rates from the 20 participants. A former study of this kind had found a significant result for this type of analysis. The second analysis tests for correlations between psychological variables obtained before each run and the hit rate of the corresponding subsequent run. The third analysis is a conceptual replication of von Lucadous correlation matrix method. It consists of multiple correlation tests between psychological and physical variables, which also can be interpreted as a multiple-analysis technique. The results of the study are p-values of p = 0.438, p = 0.703, and p = 0.0949 for the three analysis’ results to have occurred by chance under a null hypothesis. The combined p-value for these results is p = 0.315. While none of the pre-defined analysis results is found significant, a post-hoc variant of analysis 3 that includes the control data is significant with p = 0.012 to have occurred by chance, under a null hypothesis. (shrink)