Parapsychology: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:33, 30 October 2006 editGuppyfinsoup (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,052 edits →The State of The Debate: Change to "State of the controversy:" There is no debate (most non-parapsychologists who are scientists simply think parapsychologists are delusional or quacks)← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:49, 30 October 2006 edit undoGuppyfinsoup (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,052 edits →State of the controversy: npov editNext edit →
Line 51:		Line 51:
	A few parapsychologists are ], for example ] and his colleagues at the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at ], and ] and his colleagues at the Perrott-Warrick Research Unit in the ] Department of the ], both of which units include individuals who are members of the Parapsychological Association. These researchers do not approach the field with a belief in the paranormal, but are rather interested in the purely psychological aspects of those who report paranormal experiences, along with the study of the psychology of deception, hallucination, etc. These researchers also have provided their own guidelines and input to other parapsychologists for the design of experiments and how to properly test those who claim psychic abilities. While some of these guidelines have been useful, many have suffered from a naive understanding of scientific practice in general and in parapsychology in particular, from a distorted view of the methodology actually in use in the field, and the unfortunate habit of some skeptics of making sweeping statements about the applicability of counter-hypotheses to lines of research without actually investigating the appropriateness of those counter-hypotheses to the details at hand. (See, for example a mostly-positive review of one of these guidelines written by skeptics.)		A few parapsychologists are ], for example ] and his colleagues at the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at ], and ] and his colleagues at the Perrott-Warrick Research Unit in the ] Department of the ], both of which units include individuals who are members of the Parapsychological Association. These researchers do not approach the field with a belief in the paranormal, but are rather interested in the purely psychological aspects of those who report paranormal experiences, along with the study of the psychology of deception, hallucination, etc. These researchers also have provided their own guidelines and input to other parapsychologists for the design of experiments and how to properly test those who claim psychic abilities. While some of these guidelines have been useful, many have suffered from a naive understanding of scientific practice in general and in parapsychology in particular, from a distorted view of the methodology actually in use in the field, and the unfortunate habit of some skeptics of making sweeping statements about the applicability of counter-hypotheses to lines of research without actually investigating the appropriateness of those counter-hypotheses to the details at hand. (See, for example a mostly-positive review of one of these guidelines written by skeptics.)

	The field of psi research is not without ~~high level~~ support, with a number of eminent scientists being of the belief that the field is worthy of funding and study. Key among these would be ]s ] and ],<ref>Lindorff, D. (2004). Pauli and Jung: The Meeting of Two Great Minds. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.</ref> as well as ],<ref>Eysenck, H. J. (1998). Intelligence: A new look. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.</ref> ],<ref>Dunne, J. B. and Jahn, R. G. (2003). Information and uncertainty in remote perception research, Journal of Scientific Exploration</ref> and ].<ref>Sheldrake, R. (2003). The sense of being stared at: And other unexplained powers of the human mind. New York: Random House.</ref>		The field of psi research is not without some support, with a number of eminent scientists being of the belief that the field is worthy of funding and study. Key among these would be ]s ] and ],<ref>Lindorff, D. (2004). Pauli and Jung: The Meeting of Two Great Minds. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.</ref> as well as ],<ref>Eysenck, H. J. (1998). Intelligence: A new look. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.</ref> ],<ref>Dunne, J. B. and Jahn, R. G. (2003). Information and uncertainty in remote perception research, Journal of Scientific Exploration</ref> and ].<ref>Sheldrake, R. (2003). The sense of being stared at: And other unexplained powers of the human mind. New York: Random House.</ref> Among these, however, only Eysenck possesses formal education in psychology.

	=====Interpretation of the evidence=====		=====Interpretation of the evidence=====

Revision as of 21:49, 30 October 2006

Template:POV-body Parapsychology is the study of certain types of paranormal phenomena (parapsychology comes from the Greek para, “beside, beyond,” + psychology, derived from the Greek psyche, “soul, mind,” + logos “rational discussion”). The term was coined by Max Dessoir (1889). J. B. Rhine adopted it to refer to the scientific study of paranormal phenomena which are manifestations of psi. According to The Parapsychological Association, an organization affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, parapsychological phenomena can be categorized thus:

These anomalies fall into three general categories: ESP , PK , and phenomena suggestive of survival after bodily death, including near-death experiences, apparitions, and reincarnation. Most parapsychologists today expect that further research will eventually explain these anomalies in scientific terms, although it is not clear whether they can be fully understood without significant (some might say revolutionary) expansions of the current state of scientific knowledge. Other researchers take the stance that existing scientific models of perception and memory are adequate to explain some or all parapsychological phenomena.

Many see the term parapsychology as synonymous with paranormal. However, the paranormal also includes subjects considered to be outside of the scope of parapsychology, including UFOs, Bigfoot, vampires, alchemy, paganism, the Bermuda Triangle and many other non-psychical subjects.

The basic mechanisms and physical laws which govern parapsychological phenomena (if the paradigm of physical laws holds for these occurrences) are unknown to current science. However, the active agent by which mind influences matter and is able to receive ESP impressions has been named psi (Ψ, ψ).

The scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena and the validity of scientific parapsychological research is a matter of frequent dispute and criticism. It is regarded by critics as a pseudoscience, but proponents claim that parapsychology does not deal with the supernatural, because many of its research results are scientifically rigorous. A number of academic institutions now conduct research on the topic, employing laboratory methodologies and statistical techniques, such as meta-analysis. The Parapsychological Association has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for over 20 years.

Parapsychology is difficult to define, due to the lack of theoretical understanding of the subject matter. This is such a prominent fact in the field that Dr. Dean Radin, a leading parapsychological researcher, defines parapsychology on his website merely as "the scientific and scholarly study of certain unusual events associated with human experience."

History and claims

Main articles: History of parapsychology and Claims of parapsychology

Status of the field

Many professional scientists study parapsychology. It is an interdisciplinary field, attracting psychologists, physicists, engineers, and biologists, as well as those from other sciences. One organization involved in the field, the Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). . At present (2006) there are about two hundred and seventy five members in the Parapsychological Association.

As a general rule, while trained scientists may not be as likely to believe in parapsychological phenomena as the general public, they are far from monolithic in their disbelief. Surveys of this group are rare, but in their 1994 paper in the Psychological Bulletin entitled Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer Daryl J. Bem and Charles Honorton quote a 1979 survey:

A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner; Monnet, 1979).

State of the controversy

Because parapsychology touches on areas of profound human ignorance such as physics and the nature of consciousness, and also areas of deep meaning such as religion, superstition, and traditional beliefs, it is extremely controversial. This controversy has taken on a very emotional tone, with skeptics of parapsychology feeling besieged by a wave of superstition. Skeptics have attacked scientists involved in parapsychology as frauds and pseudoscientists who bias their results to fulfill their emotional needs. Proponents of parapsychology have responded that the skeptics are promoting "scientism" rather than real science by acting as if results which contradict established knowledge cannot be real:

A characteristic of many scoffers is their pejorative characterization of proponents as "promoters" and sometimes even the most protoscientific anomaly claimants are labelled as "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." In their most extreme form., scoffers represent a form of quasi-religious Scientism that treats minority or deviant viewpoints in science as heresies (Truzzi, 1996).

Skeptics have responded, in the words of Carl Sagan that "…extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Parapsychologists riposte that they have attained levels of proof which are more than sufficient to prove their results in any other field of science.

Another factor which makes parapsychology highly controversial is that there is no theory which can account for parapsychological results. Psi seems to be able to establish informational links both to the past and the future. Its effects do not seem to drop off according to the inverse square law, as with other physical forces. And information gathered using psi does not seem to require energy to facilitate its transfer. Also, there may not be any limit on the complexity of information gained by psi.

Parapsychology is also very threatening to those who believe, with a great deal of justification, that to admit that psi exists would encourage religion, superstition, and psychic frauds, as all these are based either on manifestations of psi, or on reports which are hard to distinguish from it. Skeptics fear that this would undermine the foundations of science and reason.

There have been a huge number of parapsychological experiments performed under controlled laboratory conditions. According to Dr. Dean Radin,

In 1993, the late parapsychologist Charles Honorton from the University of Edinburgh considered what skeptics of psi experiments used to claim, and what they no longer claimed. He demonstrated that virtually all of the skeptical arguments used to explain away psi over the years had been resolved through design of new experiments. This does not mean the experiments conducted today are “perfect,” because there is nothing perfect in the empirical sciences. But it does mean that the methods available today satisfy the most rigorous skeptical requirements for providing “exceptional evidence.” As we’ve seen, such experiments have been conducted, with successful results.

Many of these experiments have been done with the aid of skeptics of parapsychology, and also with the aid of professional conjurors, in order to eliminate as much as possible all controversies concerning the analysis of the data gathered, and to prevent fraud on the part of the subjects. Dean Radin quotes parapsychologist George Hansen as saying that

Although the public tends to view magicians as debunkers, the opposite is more the case. Birdsell (1989) polled a group of magicians and found that 82% gave a positive response to a question of belief in ESP. Truzzi (1983) noted a poll of German magicians that found that 72.3% thought psi was probably real. Many prominent magicians have expressed a belief in psychic phenomena. …. It is simply a myth that magicians have been predominantly skeptical about the existence of psi.

Another major reason that psi has remained controversial is that parapsychologists have sometimes been fooled by hoaxes. Some parapsychological studies have been badly designed, in such a way as to permit fraud. In the case of Project Alpha, magician James Randi planted magicians as subjects of a parapsychological experiment, and they were able to fool the researchers. Such methodological failures have been cited by skeptics as evidence of the probability that most if not all parapsychological results derive from error or fraud.

Andrew Greeley, a Catholic priest and a sociologist from the University of Arizona, studied surveys on belief in ESP from 1978 through 1987, and he also studied the mental health of believers in ESP. The surveys he studied showed that from 1978 through 1987, the number of American adults who reported psychic experiences rose from 58% to 67% (clairvoyance and contacts with the dead were reported by 25% of his respondents). According to Greeley, the elderly, women, widows and widowers, and the conventionally religious report a higher incidence of such experiences. He also tested the psychological well-being of people reporting mystical experiences with the "Affect Balance Scale" and found that people reporting mystical experiences received top scores. Greeley summarized his findings by writing:

People who've tasted the paranormal, whether they accept it intellectually or not, are anything but religious nuts or psychiatric cases. They are, for the most part, ordinary Americans, somewhat above the norm in education and intelligence and somewhat less than average in religious involvement.

A few parapsychologists are skeptics, for example Chris French and his colleagues at the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths College in London, and Richard Wiseman and his colleagues at the Perrott-Warrick Research Unit in the Psychology Department of the University of Hertfordshire, both of which units include individuals who are members of the Parapsychological Association. These researchers do not approach the field with a belief in the paranormal, but are rather interested in the purely psychological aspects of those who report paranormal experiences, along with the study of the psychology of deception, hallucination, etc. These researchers also have provided their own guidelines and input to other parapsychologists for the design of experiments and how to properly test those who claim psychic abilities. While some of these guidelines have been useful, many have suffered from a naive understanding of scientific practice in general and in parapsychology in particular, from a distorted view of the methodology actually in use in the field, and the unfortunate habit of some skeptics of making sweeping statements about the applicability of counter-hypotheses to lines of research without actually investigating the appropriateness of those counter-hypotheses to the details at hand. (See, for example a mostly-positive review of one of these guidelines written by skeptics.)

The field of psi research is not without some support, with a number of eminent scientists being of the belief that the field is worthy of funding and study. Key among these would be Nobel Laureates Brian Josephson and Wolfgang Pauli, as well as Hans Eysenck, Robert G Jahn, and Rupert Sheldrake. Among these, however, only Eysenck possesses formal education in psychology.

Interpretation of the evidence

Scientists who support parapsychology research hold that there is at least a small amount of data from properly controlled experiments that can be trusted for a small number of psi phenomena. Some of these scientists hold that this evidence is not definitive, but suggestive enough to warrant further research . Others believe that a great deal of evidence has been collected, which, if it addressed more conventional phenomena, would be sufficient to provide proof.

Some experiments have tested the ability to use ESP to get above-average scores when guessing targets such as cards, pictures, or videos. Other experiments have tested the ability to foretell future events, both consciously, and unconsciously by using electrodes to measure galvanic skin responses to future stimuli. There have also been many experiments testing the ability to influence [[random number generator|random number generators. Many of these experiments have had positive results, with subjects scoring significantly above chance. This significance, when analyzed using statistics, has often been astronomically high. However, such results only seem impressive to those educated in statistics, because the results have been only a few percentage points above chance. For instance, where chance = 25%, a psychic might score somewhere between 27% and 32%. Some of the studies have returned results which are not significantly above chance (which is defined as odds greater than 20 to 1). Others, especially those performed by experimenters and subjects who disbelieve in psi, have scored significantly below chance (this is called psi-missing). When results of these studies are combined in meta-analyses, they return astronomically high results in favor of the existence of psi (or some unknown factor). This is so even when common statistical tools are used to rule out "file drawer" cases which might occur when insignificant results are not reported. Despite these results, however, parapsychology remains highly controversial, due to the lack of a theory which explains its results.

Many people, such as John Beloff and Stephen E. Braude, cannot easily dismiss the entirety of all the positive accounts, many of which came from scientists and conjurors of their day. Many began as skeptics, but then changed their minds to become believers and supporters of psychic phenomena when they encountered the inexplicable. However, many of these individuals were out of their league when it came to the close-up deceptions of fraudulent mediums and adept charlatans. (Podmore, 1910 & Price and Dingwall, 1975)

Other parapsychologists, such as Dean Radin, and supporters such as statistician Jessica Utts, take the stance that the existence of certain psi phenomena have been reasonably well established in recent times through repeatable experiments that have been replicated dozens to hundreds of times at labs around the world. They refer to meta-analyses of psi experiments that conclude that the odds against chance (null hypothesis) of experimental results far exceeds that commonly required to establish results in other fields, sometime by orders of magnitude. Gifted subjects scored 2% above chance. (Utts and Josephson, 1996)

Skeptics say that this is an old argument (eg. see Rawcliffe 1952, pages 441 & 442). For meta-analyses to be useful, the question of whether or not each of these experiments themselves have been efficiently carried out must be addressed. In the unsophisticated "language of the street" this would be known as "garbage in garbage out".

Other objections to parapsychology

There are a variety of other objections to parapsychology as well.

Parapsychology as Taboo

Some believe that paranormal phenomena should not be studied. There are various resasons for this attitude, among them that the subject is forbidden by religious doctrine, promotes superstition among the public by giving scientific credence to bunk, or opens the investigators to some sort of "spiritual attack". Parapsychology is also seen as a taboo subject in science and the academy, and individuals who show an interest in studying psychic phenomena, even from a skeptical point of view, often find themselves losing or being pushed out of employment, or denied funding. Anthropologist of science, David J. Hess, has written on this topic.

Parapsychology as a Danger to Society

Some believe that parapsychology should not be pursued because it somehow represents a danger to society. As is stated in the Y2000 NSF report Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience:

Other facts

German psychiatrist Hans Berger originally used the electroencephalograph (EEG) on humans in 1929 as a tool to study whether telepathy might be explained by brain waves. (Beyerstein, B. L. 1999)

The first and only Ph.D. in Parapsychology awarded by any American university, was the University of California, Berkeley awarding the PhD to Dr Jeffrey Mishlove in 1980. Subsequently some activists unsuccessfully lobbied the Berkeley administration to revoke the degree. Reportedly, as many as 46 people in the UK have doctorates in parapsychology. However, with the exception of Dr. Mishlove, mentioned above, the so-called "46 people in the UK" have doctorates in other disciplines, principally in psychology, but completed doctoral thesis work which included or were devoted to research projects in parapsychology. Such individuals are also expected to be competent in the disciplines in which they received their degrees. Examples of these individuals include: Dr. Susan Blackmore (it says "PhD in Parapsychology, University of Surrey, 1980" on her webpage CV , though), Dr. Richard Broughton, Dr. Deborah Delanoy, Dr. Serena-Roney Dougall, Dr. Chris Roe, Dr. Simon Sherwood, Dr. Christine Simmonds, Dr. Matthew Smith, Dr. Carl Williams, Dr. Richard Wiseman, among others.

Joseph B. Rhine began examining psychic abilities after hearing, and being deeply impressed, by a lecture given by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, about the scientific reality of having established contact with the dead. (Rinn 1950)

Noted parapsychologists

List of parapsychologists

Critics of parapsychology

External links

Independent research organizations

Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was founded in 1973 by astronaut Edgar Mitchell to explore the frontiers of consciousness through rigorous scientific research.
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science.
Society for Psychical Research (SPR). The original scientific society founded in London in 1882.
American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR).
Rhine Research Center and Institute for Parapsychology, originally part of Duke University, now an independent research center. The accomplished physicist Irving Langmuir, a founder of many studies in atmospheric electricity and plasma physics, visited Rhine at his laboratory in 1934. Rhine admitted (rather proudly and contentiously) to Langmuir that he had discarded data that was "wrong" because it did not support his belief in extrasensory perception. See Langmuir's 1953 talk Pathological Science at Princeton University
Parapsychology Foundation
Parapsychological Association This organisation has been a member of the AAAS for over 20 years.
International Academy of Consciousness

University research organizations

Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh.
Parapsychology Research Group at Liverpool Hope University.
Global Consciousness Project at Princeton
The VERITAS Research Program at the University of Arizona
Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Research Unit of Liverpool John Moores University.
Psychology Research Cluster at University College Northampton.
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) at Princeton University.
Division of Personality Studies (DOPS), a unit of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia.
Bigelow Chair of Consciousness Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).
Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit (APRU) at the University of Adelaide.
Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths University of London.
Perrott-Warrick Research Unit in the Psychology Department of the University of Hertfordshire.

Other

Entry on parapsychology in the Skeptic's Dictionary
Dean Radin's A Field Guide to Skepticism from his book The Conscious Universe.
The Project Alpha Experiment
The online Library of Exploratory Science contains the complete text of many of the major peer reviewed journals in parapsychology and psychical research.

References

http://www.medicalglossary.org/psychological_phenomena_and_processes_parapsychology_definitions.html Medical Glossary.org
http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/para/paraglos.htm#P Psychic Science.com
http://www.parapsych.org/glossary_l_r.html#p The Parapsychological Association, Inc. (PA) is the international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of ‘psi’
Parapsychological Association. "What is the PA? Mission Statement"
^ http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html FAQ of the Parapsychological Association
^ The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena by Dean I. Radin Harper Edge, ISBN 0-06-251502-0
http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file3.html#21 Parapsychological Association, FAQ #21
^ http://www.deanradin.com/para3.html#eleven FAQ from the website of the president of the Parapsychological Association, question: Why is parapsychology so controversial?
http://www.enlightenment.com/media/interviews/tartall/tart.html#Anchorpsi An Enlightenment Interview with Professor Charles T. Tart
http://skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/perspective.htm Anomalistics The Perspective of Anomalistics By Marcello Truzzi
http://www.angelfire.com/ok/TheDeepSkies/SaganQuotes.html Carl Sagan Quotes
http://www.goertzel.org/dynapsyc/1996/subtle.htm Subtle Connections: Psi, Grof, Jung, and the Quantum Vacuum By las
http://jeksite.org/psi/jp01.pdf J. E. Kennedy in The Journal of Parapsychology, Vol. 65, September 2001 (pp. 219-246)
http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/project_alpha.htm Project Alpha, The Skeptical Inquirer Summer 1983 The Project Alpha Experiment: Part one. The First Two Years by James Randi
Lindorff, D. (2004). Pauli and Jung: The Meeting of Two Great Minds. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.
Eysenck, H. J. (1998). Intelligence: A new look. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Dunne, J. B. and Jahn, R. G. (2003). Information and uncertainty in remote perception research, Journal of Scientific Exploration
Sheldrake, R. (2003). The sense of being stared at: And other unexplained powers of the human mind. New York: Random House.
Entangled Minds by Dean Radin, Simon & Schuster, Paraview Pocket Books , 2006
Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience, National Science Foundation, 2000.

Categories:

Misplaced Pages