The Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium's PortREG Replication Experiments report, by Robert G. Jahn and coauthors in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2000, describes a multi-laboratory attempt to replicate the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory's earlier claims of small statistical anomalies in random number generators when operators attempted to mentally influence them. Its authority as a source is that it is a peer reviewed report describing what the replication attempt actually did and found. Its limit is significant and should be stated plainly: the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a niche venue for parapsychological and anomalies research rather than a mainstream physics or psychology journal, and the broader scientific consensus does not accept the underlying anomalous effect these experiments sought to replicate as established. Cite it as a documented claim and its own reported results, not as settled evidence of the effect.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier2
The Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium's PortREG Replication Experiments report, by Robert G. Jahn and coauthors in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2000, the middle tier reflecting that it is a peer reviewed report of what the replication attempt did and found, notwithstanding that the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a niche venue and the broader scientific consensus does not accept the underlying anomalous effect as established. NotesPeer-reviewed report of the PortREG replication experiments by the Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2000.
Citation
AuthorRobert G. Jahn and the Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium
PublisherJournal of Scientific Exploration
Publication Year2000
Source Typepeer-reviewed article
Claims Backed By This Source (13 claims)
This source backs 13 claims across the atlas. As facts: 9 well-attested, 2 popular myth - corrected. Plus 2 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 7 claims: 7 well-attested.
- Articles, 2 claims: 2 well-attested.
- Historical Figures, 2 claims: 1 popular myth - corrected, 1 general references.
- Studies, 2 claims: 1 popular myth - corrected, 1 general references.
Popular myth - corrected
2Reader 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.