The Cause-and-Effect Relationship of Theory vs Refutation

In the field of psychology, the research process is a cyclic one. Scientific progress is made by testing the validity of scientists’ educated inferences and from the information gathered in the testing process making new inferences that are more educated than before. These new inferences are then tested and the cycle repeats itself. Experimental results are not the only influence on the creation of new hypotheses, however. Input from a scientist’s peers is also crucial when evaluating the results of an experiment, as it helps the scientist obtain a nonbiased view of the facts before him. As long as humans study psychology, refutations, reevaluations and criticisms will necessarily follow the publication of psychological theories. 

Rupert Sheldrake is of the opinion that many people have an inexplicable awareness of when they are being stared at. To support this theory, he points to his own experimental research on the subject as well as several surveys that demonstrate that many people believe that they themselves have this ability to sense unseen stares (1). Sheldrake’s work is not without its critics, however. In an article entitled “Research on the Feeling of Being Stared At,” Sheldrake quotes Robert A. Baker: 
“Skeptics…believe that [the feeling of being stared at] is nothing more than a superstition and/or a response to subtle signals from the environment” (1). Baker did not stop at his refutation of Sheldrake’s theory; he took it one step further and performed his own research to reevaluate the theory.