Criticisms raised against the investigation of purportedly anomalous telephone occurrences

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Rogo and Bayless (1979) published a two-year investigation into reports of perceived contact with the dead via the telephone, and telephone calls from living people verified to be elsewhere at the time the call took place. Criticisms of their research methods — more so than of the phenomena themselves — began to appear in various forms, including as book reviews in parapsychology journals, which in some instances gave the researchers a chance to reply. Such criticisms were briefly summarised in a recent updated study of telephone anomalies (Cooper, 2014, p. 211). However, it is argued that some of the methodological criticisms raised deserve further response in defence of the researchers. This paper presents a collective summary of these critiques (following extensive searches for such reviews) and rejoinders.
Original languageEnglish
Article number1
Pages (from-to)15-27
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of the Society for Psychical Research
Volume82
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 31 Jan 2018

Fingerprint

telephone
criticism
parapsychology
book review
research method
contact
time

Bibliographical note

closed access, only via spr membership

Cite this

@article{b4d5b71b026d4dad8c76132b023a565d,
title = "Criticisms raised against the investigation of purportedly anomalous telephone occurrences",
abstract = "Rogo and Bayless (1979) published a two-year investigation into reports of perceived contact with the dead via the telephone, and telephone calls from living people verified to be elsewhere at the time the call took place. Criticisms of their research methods — more so than of the phenomena themselves — began to appear in various forms, including as book reviews in parapsychology journals, which in some instances gave the researchers a chance to reply. Such criticisms were briefly summarised in a recent updated study of telephone anomalies (Cooper, 2014, p. 211). However, it is argued that some of the methodological criticisms raised deserve further response in defence of the researchers. This paper presents a collective summary of these critiques (following extensive searches for such reviews) and rejoinders.",
author = "Cooper, {Callum E}",
note = "closed access, only via spr membership",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "31",
language = "English",
volume = "82",
pages = "15--27",
journal = "Journal of the Society for Psychical Research",
issn = "0037-1475",
number = "1",

}

Criticisms raised against the investigation of purportedly anomalous telephone occurrences. / Cooper, Callum E.

In: Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1, 31.01.2018, p. 15-27.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Criticisms raised against the investigation of purportedly anomalous telephone occurrences

AU - Cooper, Callum E

N1 - closed access, only via spr membership

PY - 2018/1/31

Y1 - 2018/1/31

N2 - Rogo and Bayless (1979) published a two-year investigation into reports of perceived contact with the dead via the telephone, and telephone calls from living people verified to be elsewhere at the time the call took place. Criticisms of their research methods — more so than of the phenomena themselves — began to appear in various forms, including as book reviews in parapsychology journals, which in some instances gave the researchers a chance to reply. Such criticisms were briefly summarised in a recent updated study of telephone anomalies (Cooper, 2014, p. 211). However, it is argued that some of the methodological criticisms raised deserve further response in defence of the researchers. This paper presents a collective summary of these critiques (following extensive searches for such reviews) and rejoinders.

AB - Rogo and Bayless (1979) published a two-year investigation into reports of perceived contact with the dead via the telephone, and telephone calls from living people verified to be elsewhere at the time the call took place. Criticisms of their research methods — more so than of the phenomena themselves — began to appear in various forms, including as book reviews in parapsychology journals, which in some instances gave the researchers a chance to reply. Such criticisms were briefly summarised in a recent updated study of telephone anomalies (Cooper, 2014, p. 211). However, it is argued that some of the methodological criticisms raised deserve further response in defence of the researchers. This paper presents a collective summary of these critiques (following extensive searches for such reviews) and rejoinders.

UR - https://www.spr.ac.uk/

UR - http://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?site=ehost&scope=site&jrnl=00379751&AN=128508521&h=lKd5nx9%2f%2fzwVXst8B%2fxTDZPw%2bKe1z%2bezx8lfBXWiIjwl6IFpsSUCC5UMgfs7nbvXULJtNzqVXkVp8dhFpxpFMg%3d%3d&crl=c&resultLocal=ErrCrlNoResults&resultNs=Ehost&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d00379751%26AN%3d128508521

M3 - Article

VL - 82

SP - 15

EP - 27

JO - Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

JF - Journal of the Society for Psychical Research

SN - 0037-1475

IS - 1

M1 - 1

ER -