In the criticism and research section various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience This has largely been due to lack of replication of results by independent experimenters The references for this statement are as follows Hyman Ray 1995 Evaluation of the program on anomalous mental phenomena The Journal of Parapsychology 59 1 Retrieved 2007 07 30 Akers C 1986 Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology Advances in Parapsychological Research 4 PesquisaPSI Retrieved 2007 07 30 Child I L 1987 Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology Advances in Parapsychological Research 5 PesquisaPSI Retrieved 2007 07 30 Wiseman Richard Smith Matthew et al 1996 Exploring possible sender to experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments Psychophysical Research Laboratories The Journal of Parapsychology Retrieved 2007 07 30 The way in which this information is given suggests that such researchers are independent Just looking at the names of the studies this can be seen as incorrect Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology I am less aware of the reliability of the others but using Hyman and Wiseman immediately rings alarm bells Cheers