In a discussion of the psi hypothesis, Charles Brenner pointed out certain factual errors in a paper on this subject by Jule Eisenbud. Brenner stated that statistical laws had been misapplied so as to make what might well be only coincidence prove 'very nearly whatever one wishes to believe'. He questioned the validity of the psi hypothesis.

In response, Eisenbud quoted various sources in denial of the imputed fallacies of fact and reasoning.

Similarly, David Brunswick raised certain questions concerning Emilio Servadio's paper on a telepathic-precognitive dream during analysis, these questions pointing toward possible nontelepathic explanations for the experiences described. In reply, Dr. Servadio commented on the data, which in his opinion established the validity of the telepathic but perhaps not of the precognitive aspects.