Sentics: More art than science?

Authors


Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide, GPO Box 498, Adelaide, South Australia, 5001, Australia

Abstract

We reject the assertion (Clynes, 1989) that results of Nettelbeck, Henderson, and Willson (1989) are invalidated by procedural shortcomings and inadequate analyses. On the contrary, we maintain the robustness of the conclusion that the four experiments reported in that article failed to support Clynes' sentic theory. This outcome is consistent with recent research by others.

Ancillary