Robert G. Jahn, Brenda J. Dunne, Roger D. Nelson and their co-authors ran the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research program, and this Journal of Scientific Exploration article is their own published review of its twelve year program correlating random binary sequences with operator intention. Its value is that it is the group's own detailed account of its methodology and results, useful as a primary record of what PEAR actually claimed and how. Its limit is the reason for its tier two placement: it is the researchers' own report of their own program rather than an independent replication, and subsequent independent analyses have found the claimed effects did not hold up, so a claim asserting the results as established needs to be weighed against that independent critical literature.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier2
Published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, the PEAR researchers' own account of their own twelve year program, a primary record of the group's claims rather than independent replication, and later independent analyses found the claimed effects did not hold up, hence the middle tier. NotesThe Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research group's own published review of its twelve year program correlating random binary sequences with operator intention.
Citation
AuthorRobert G. Jahn, Brenda J. Dunne, Roger D. Nelson, York H. Dobyns and G. J. Bradish
PublisherJournal of Scientific Exploration
Publication Year1997
Source Typepeer-reviewed article
Claims Backed By This Source (24 claims)
This source backs 24 claims across the atlas. As facts: 11 well-attested, 1 scholarly debate. As cited relationships: 7 holds. Plus 5 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 7 claims: 7 well-attested.
- Studies, 6 claims: 2 well-attested, 3 holds, 1 general references.
- Years, 4 claims: 2 holds, 2 general references.
- Psi Phenomena, 3 claims: 2 holds, 1 general references.
- Articles, 2 claims: 2 well-attested.
- Historical Figures, 2 claims: 1 scholarly debate, 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.