Misplaced Pages

Controversy in parapsychology

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.17.247.250 (talk) at 03:09, 16 July 2007 (→Statistical significance: Edited Typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:09, 16 July 2007 by 76.17.247.250 (talk) (→Statistical significance: Edited Typo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:ActiveDiscuss

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Parapsychology. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2007.

While parapsychology is a recognized discipline, the scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena and the validity of scientific parapsychological research within it remain a subject of dispute and criticism.

In response to this criticism, the scientific standards in parapsychology have been continuously tightened, and parapsychologists say that current experiments such as the autoganzfeld meet the highest scientific standards. Critics, however, say that replications are still needed before the existence of psi can be considered a scientific fact.

General context

Many skeptics of parapsychology hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of poor quality and not properly controlled; in their view, the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever. They often cite instances of fraud, flawed or potentially flawed studies, a psychological need for mysticism, and cognitive bias as ways to explain parapsychological results.

Some proponents of parapsychology argue that those who hold these views have not had sufficient contact with the published literature of the field published in its peer-reviewed journals. Instead, many skeptics seem to have relied on the analyses made by members of the skeptical community. (Radin, 1997: 205-227)

However, even "insiders" in the parapsychological community worry about naive belief in the paranormal. They have tried to distance parapsychology from the paranormal in popular culture.

Criticism of parapsychology

Reliability of evidence

A common criticism of parapsychology is the accusation that the field relies primarily on anecdotal evidence, which may be unreliable both in observation and analysis. The majority of the scientific community does not accept anecdotal evidence alone as proof of a theory. This is because anecdotes may have natural, non-anomalous explanations such as random coincidence, fraud, imagination, or auto-suggestion.

Much of the evidence for psi phenomena today is based on laboratory experiments and not anecdotal evidence. Although anecdotal evidence can be used for specific cases such as in law and many other fields, these are not necessarily used as evidence for the general existence of psi.

Controlled conditions

Experiments in parapsychology have been criticized for not being sufficiently controlled to rule out normal explanations for the results.

Flaws in parapsychological research are addressed in the same way it is addressed in any other field of science, by repeating experiments at multiple independent laboratories; publishing methods and results of studies in order to receive critical feedback and design better protocols.

Replication

While parapsychological experiments with positive results have been replicated at independent laboratories, skeptics say that these replications were poorly done, and need further confirmation before they are accepted. (Radin 1997:91-109) (Radin 2006: 278)

Statistical significance

The positive results in psi experiments are very close to statistical insignificance. Meta-analyses of psi experiments have shown positive results far beyond that required for acceptance in any other science. (Radin 1997: 219) However, reliance on meta-analyses is seen as troublesome within parapsychology, because analysis is done after the results are known. "

Presumption of psi

Parapsychology is said to suffer from what is called The psi assumption. Just because there exist currently inexplicable positive results of apparently sound parapsychological experiments does not prove the existence of psi, but only an unexplained anomaly.

Gambling

Psychics could make a lot of money predicting or even controlling (via PK) events, but none of them seem to do so. Parapsychologists say that the effects of psi are too tiny or unreliable to give psychics a major advantage. (Radin 1997: 175) (see Radin 1997: 175-189).

Conflict with known science

Psi phenomena are often considered by critics to violate "the known laws of physics". Parapsychologists say that psi does not violate the laws of physics, but merely requires that our understanding of physics be expanded. (see Radin 1997: 221-222)

Interdisciplinary field

Critics dispute that parapsychology is a truly interdisciplinary field, because other fields do not seem to need parapsychology to explain their results. Parapsychologists feel that isolation from other branches of science does not occur because parapsychology has nothing to offer other fields, but because of bias, saying that parapsychology can contribute in many ways. One area where parapsychological research into the possible effects of human consciousness on matter might benefit physicists is in the area of quantum theory. The interaction of consciousness with matter is sometimes acknowledged by physicists, yet parapsychological results are not considered relevant. Parapsychologists point to such contradictions as evidence that their isolation from other fields of science may be due to bias.

Pseudoscience

Parapsychologists make illegitimate use of well established scientific theories. Many ideas in physics have been invoked to explain or justify the existence of putative psi phenomena: Relativity theory and the concept of simultaneity; the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, time reversal, tachyon particles and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - the latter having been used to explain negative results ('experimenter' and 'sheep-goat)') effects). As Alcock has noted:

"Ideas emanating from modern physics are often pushed to great lengths to support a belief in parapsychology, and such ideas may appear convincing to the individual totally unfamiliar with relativity and quantum mechanics.".

However, Alcock and others have maintained that:

"Casual, almost flippant, references to are often used to suggest that at the sub-atomic level determinacy breaks down, and that physics and metaphysics merge into one. Most parapsychologists... appear to "latch on" to Heisenberg as a way of demonstrating the "scientific" basis for their position".

Parapsychologists do not claim to understand psi. Psi is the name for an unknown phenomenon or unknown phenomena, which have given rise throughout history to many extraordinary human experiences, and which have been demonstrated in the laboratory. However, quantum mechanics and other physical theories have many similarities with parapsychological observations of psi. These similarities have not been shown to explain psi, predict psi, or even to be relevant to psi. However, the topical similarities are suggestive, and have lead parapsychologists and some quantum theorists to speculate that they may eventually lead to an expanded understanding of physics which embraces psi.

Some parapsychogists have stated that modern physics should not be used to explain psi, and that difficult issues, like the EPR paradox, do not necessarily require a psi explanation:

"Modern physics, to be sure, is concerned with phenomena which can be as bizarre at first as psi, and the two can sometimes resemble each other on a superficial level. But on closer inspection, the physics problems turn out to be comprehensible within a powerful and coherent set of ideas which have brilliantly withstood years of testing"

Scientists specializing in distinct disciplines within mathematics and physics work collaboratively with deeply complicated concepts that often require bold, intuitive and imaginative speculation, yet in spite of this, the community generally rejects hypotheses proposed to account for psi. However, according to Professor Brian Josephson,

"It is not too far fetched to say that if psychic phenomena had not been found experimentally, they might have been predicted by an imaginative theoretician."

See also

References

  1. http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html Psychological Bulletin 1994, Vol. 115, No. 1, 4-18. Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer By Daryl J. Bem and Charles Honorton
  2. http://www.mceagle.com/remote-viewing/refs/science/air/hyman.html The Journal of Parapsychology, December, 1995, Evaluation of Program on Anomalous Mental Phenomena By Ray Hyman Retrieved January 5, 2007
  3. ^ The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena by Dean I. Radin Harper Edge, ISBN 0-06-251502-0
  4. http://www.psy.gu.se/EJP/EJP1984Bauer.pdf Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology - An Overview By Eberhard Bauer, Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, in the European Journal of Parapsychology, 1984, 5, 141-166, Retrieved February 5, 2007
  5. http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html "Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology", Akers, C., Advances in Parapsychological Research 4, edited by Stanley Krippner, 1986
  6. http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html "Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology, 1975-185", Child, I.L., Advances in Parapsychological Research 5, edited by Stanley Krippner, 1987
  7. Wiseman, R., Smith, M,. Kornrot, D. (June 1996). Exploring possible sender-to-experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments. Journal of Parapsychology.
  8. http://www.parapsych.org/papers/07.pdf The Invisible Gaze: Three Attempts to Replicate Sheldrake's Staring Effects, Lobach E, Bierman D, Proceedings of the 47th PA Convention, 2004, pp. 77-90
  9. http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality by Ray Hyman in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, March/April 1996 Retrieved Wednesday, December 13, 2006
  10. http://www.nap.edu/books/POD276/html/647.html "A comprehensive review of major empirical studies in parapsychology involving random event generators or remote viewing" by Alcock, J.
  11. Cite error: The named reference EntangledMinds was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm "Critique of the PEAR Remote-Viewing Experiments", Hansen, G.P., Utts, J., Markwick, B., Journal of Parapsychology, vol 52, no 2, June 1992, pp. 97-113
  13. "A Proposal and Challenge for Proponents and Skeptics of Psi", Kennedy, J.E., Journal of Parapsychology, 2004, vol 68, pp 157-167
  14. The promise and problems of meta-analysis", Bailar, J.C., 1997, New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 559-561, cited in Kennedy, 2004, JoP 68
  15. http://skepdic.com/psiassumption.html The Skeptic's Dictionary: Psi Assumption By Robert Todd Carroll
  16. http://twm.co.nz/FAQpara2.htm#10.2 Parapsychology FAQ, Compiled by Dean Radin, PhD of UNLV's Cognitive Research Division A helpful guide to parapsychology and the facts regarding that field, Retrieved December 26, 2006
  17. DISCIPLINING HETERODOXY, CIRCUMVENTING DISCIPLINE: PARAPSYCHOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGICALLY By David J. Hess In David Hess and Linda Layne (eds.), Knowledge and Society Vol. 9: The Anthropology of Science and Technology. Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press. Pp. 191-222. Electronic version available at http://www.davidjhess.org/DiscHet.pdf
  18. Michael Talbot, The Holographic Universe HarperPerennial, 1991 p.139
  19. Malcolm W. Brownse, "Quantum Theory: Disturbing Questions Remain Unresolved," New York Times (February 11, 1986) p. C3
  20. James E. Alcock, Parapsychology: Science or Magic? Pergamon Press, 1981, p111-115
  21. James E. Alcock, Parapsychology: Science or Magic? Pergamon Press, 1981, p.112
  22. James E. Alcock, Parapsychology: Science or Magic? Pergamon Press, 1981, p.114
  23. P.Phillips, Some traps in dealing with our critics, Parasychology Review, 10(4), p.7-8
  24. B. Josephson, The Iceland Papers, Essentia Research Associates, 1979
Categories: