Parapsychology

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martinphi (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 21 October 2006 (Re-inserting some of Simoes edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:16, 21 October 2006 by Martinphi (talk | contribs) (Re-inserting some of Simoes edits)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Parapsychology is the study of certain types of paranormal phenomena (para means along side). Parapsychologists examine a wide range of subjects which can be broadly categorized:

Mind-to-mind phenomena, such as telepathy and folie à deux, and "vibes" such as the sense that one is being stared at. Environment-to-mind influences such as hauntings, apparitions, precognition, retrocognition, psychometry xenoglossy, clairvoyance (also known as remote viewing), clairaudience, clairsentience, clairgustance and possession. Mind-to-environment influences such as psychokinesis (often called telekinesis), psychic healing, faith healing, synchronicity and poltergeists. Mind-to-mind and environment-to-mind phenomena are called extra sensory perception.

Also studied are such paranormal phenomena as morphic fields, mediumism, channeling, out-of-body experiences (also known as astral projections), near-death experiences, and reincarnation, (see this glossary of parapsychological terms).

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, cryptozoology, 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.

Other possible definitions

Parapsychology is difficult to define precisely, 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." Some have even tried to dismiss parapsychology as a psuedoscience precisely because it lacks a precise definition. But by that standard, one would also have to dismiss the study of energy and matter as psuedoscience, because no one knows exactly what energy and matter are, but only observe some of their characteristics, just as parapsychologists have observed events which seem to be paranormal.

Other definitions of parapsychology include:

The study of mental awareness of, or influence upon, external objects or conditions, without any physical or energetic means of causation which scientists currently understand. Though this definition does cover much of parapsychology, it seems that it does not fully cover such subjects as reincarnation, out-of-body experiences, or near death experiences, and it may not include such things as mediumistic phenomena, poltergeists, and synchronicity, among others. This is because it is unclear whether the psi effects originate in the mind or minds of psychics present, or whether they originate from other sources. So little is scientifically known about the phenomena studied by parapsychologists that it is unclear whether all psychic phenomena are different manifestations which will one day be brought under the roof of a single theoretical and scientific field (as in the case of biology), or whether they belong in separate fields (as with physics and psychology).

The study of psionics.

History, claims, and evaluation

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 with all areas of study, parapsychology is a field which encompasses scientists, in-depth but non-professional students, novices, the intellectually unsophisticated, and the mentally ill. However, the mentally ill are probably more prevalent in the field of parapsychology, because the mentally ill may turn to parapsychological explanations for their symptoms in an attempt to prove that they are not delusional.

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 pseudoscienctists 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. Skeptics have responded, in the words of Carl Sagan that Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Parapsychologists riposte that they have attained levels of proof which are more than sufficient to prove their results in any other field of science. And so the controversy goes.

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 does not seem to be any limit on the complexity of information gained by psi. For instance, a scientist would require not just extremely accurate and complex recording apparatus to read a mind, but would also require extremely complex interpretation abilities. However, if parapsychological results are real, it seems as if humans can easily interpret the transfer of information from one mind to another, and also from the environment to the mind.

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.

Parapsychology has been subjected to innumerable skeptical attacks. These are to be differentiated from useful scientific criticism, both by their hostile tone, and the lack of scientific reasoning. One rather insignificant example is that, as of October 20, 2006, The Skeptic's Dictionary defined parapsychology thus:

Parapsychology is the search for paranormal phenomena, such as ESP and psychokinesis. Most scientists try to explain observable phenomena. Parapsychologists try to observe unexplainable phenomena...

This is an unscientific attack, because it assumes a priori that parapsychological results cannot ever be explained (that is to say, described in such a way that parapsychological manifestations can be accurately predicted), in which case parapsychology must be a pseudoscience. It would have been better to say that Most scientists try to explain observable phenomena. Parapsychologists try to observe unexplained phenomena. However, this would have put parapsychology in the same realm as many other fields of science, in which data is gathered on as-yet unexplained phenomena. The quotation also implies that parapsychological results are actually not observations of anything substantial, else parapsychology would not be merely the "search" for paranormal phenomena. Such attacks, while unscientific, do make exceedingly good soundbites, which seem quite adequate to convince many people (including apparently the skeptics themselves) that the skeptical position has truth on its side. Parapsychology also has an enormous number of unscientific thinkers among the ranks of its unscholarly proponents. The difference is that unscientific skeptics of parapsychology often specifically shroud themselves in the mantle of scientific objectivity.

There have been a huge number of parapsychological experiments performed under controlled laboratory conditions. 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. 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.

Parapsychology in the scientific community

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)."

Some observers of the field of parapsychology believe that parapsychological results may have conventional explanations. They claim that some parapsychologists knowingly commit fraud; that some are incompetent or misled by their own hopes or desires; and that some are naïve and therefore easily deceived by fraudulent subjects of their studies. It is claimed that one or more of these factors can explain all positive parapsychological results.

Some skeptics believe that there is a tendency for parapsychology researchers to select "good days" and discard "bad days" for the people in the test samples. But the "Theory of Runs" shows that the chance of a long run of successes (or failures) increases drastically when the periods of success or failure are selected as part of a larger sample. See: Feller, William (1968), An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, vol. I, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, p. 86. For a more recent discussion of the theory and the "arcsine law" see or

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 most important point that both proponents and skeptics raise is the need to be critical of the theory, methods, and conclusions of any one who investigates or comments on parapsychology as a science, no matter what point of view they represent. In order to be an objective professional, one must have a firsthand knowledge of the vast past and present published scientific literature in the field, primary and scholarly sources of its age whenever possible, and -- even more important -- have firsthand experience as an experimenter or investigator and a respect for the art of conjuring and its masters. The hands-on approach is essential to scientific progress in the field, whether one approaches it from a "paranormalist" or a "conventional theorist" point of view. Selective and historically uninformed armchair cheerleading and armchair skepticism are equally useless in all fields of inquiry and science.

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 Nobel Laureates Brian Josephson and Wolfgang Pauli, as well as Hans Eysenck, Robert G Jahn, and Rupert Sheldrake.

Interpretation of the evidence

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Scientists skeptical 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 results whatsoever. Frequently, however, proponents argue that those who hold this view have not had sufficient contact with the published literature of the field such as that which can be found in the Journal of Parapsychology, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, or in the proceedings of the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association. Instead, they have relied on the analyses made by members of the skeptical community who, wrongly, assume that all parapsychological experiments suffer from flaws, and therefore no parapsychological experiment may be considered evidential even in the weak sense of the term. Working psi researchers welcome criticisms which are not psychologically or ideologically biased and which are based on knowledge of the peer-reviewed, published literature of the field. Criticism and blanket statements based on emotionalism, a priori assumptions, and hearsay are not productive and not encouraged in any area of science.

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.

Common criticisms of parapsychological research

Anecdotal evidence is inherently unreliable. Anecdotes may have natural, non-anomalous explanations such as random coincidence, fraud, imagination, or auto-suggestion. Therefore any parapsychology research (or any scientific research) relying purely on anecdotal evidence is worthless.

If an experiment is not controlled to prevent fraud, then the results may not be trusted. This is especially so given the fact that a number of people who claimed to possess psi abilities were later proven to be frauds.

Skeptics claim that parapsychology experiments are poorly designed and have a lack of proper controls, allowing paths of intentional or unintentional information leakage through normal means, etc.

Parapsychology experiments require replication with positive results at more independent laboratories than is currently occurring.

Positive results in psi experiments are so statistically insignificant as to be negligible, i.e. indistinguishable from chance. For example, parapsychology may have a "file drawer" problem where a large percentage of negative results are never published, making positive results appear more significant than they actually are.

Currently inexplicable positive results of apparently sound experiments do not prove the existence of psi phenomena, i.e., normal explanations may yet be found.

Psi phenomena cannot be accepted as explanation of positive results until there is a widely acceptable theory of how they operate.

Parapsychologists may prefer and write selective history. The whole story may be avoided.

Parapsychology spends too much time simply trying to show that certain phenomena occur, and too little time trying to explain them; yet it is explanation that constitutes the heart of scientific enquiry, and wider, scientific acceptance of parapsychological phenomena would come only with the provision of a theoretical basis for parapsychology.

People who are considered noteworthy psychics could make a lot of money predicting or even controlling (via PK) the outcomes of boxing matches, football games, roulette wheel spins, individual stock price changes, and so on, but none of them seem to do so. Why not?

Parapsychology has chosen to pursue its future chasing bent spoons, quantum physics, high technologies, immortality, mysticism, and miracle. There are only minor inquiries into the mundane worlds of emotional contagion, shared delusions, abnormal psychology and psychotic disorders, such as folie a deux, schizophrenia, etc. Perhaps because a connection of psi to severe mental illness or anxiety lacks grandeur and public approval. There has been no inquiry into the shared visual hallucinations reported in connection with Ayahuasca and the incapacitating agent BZ.

Responses from parapsychologists to criticisms

The hard evidence for psi phenomena today is founded on repeatable experiments and not anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is considered valid in law and many other fields. The validity of anecdotal evidence does not depend upon the opinion of those listening to it. Memory studies by Elizabeth Loftus show that while memory can be capricious, a majority of people are not affected by many controlled memory manipulations. (See for data.)

There is no such thing as a completely foolproof experiment in any field of science, and it is unreasonable to hold parapsychology to a higher standard of epistemology than the other sciences. Fraud and incompetence in parapsychology is addressed in the same way it is addressed in any other field of science: repeating experiments at multiple independent laboratories; publishing methods and results in order to receive critical feedback and design better protocols, etc. There is no evidence of a greater degree of fraud in parapsychology than in other areas of science.

Experimental protocols have been continually improved over time, sometimes with the direct assistance of noted skeptics. Meta-analyses show that the significance of the positive results have not declined over time, but instead have remained fairly constant.

There are certain phenomena which have been replicated with odds against chance far beyond that required for acceptance in any other science. Meta-analyses show that these cannot be accounted for by any file drawer problem. Dr Dean Radin, in his book Entangled Minds, discusses methods of detecting 'file drawer' errors using broadly accepted statistical methods, including the funnel plot.

Anomalous phenomena do not disappear for lack of a theory. There have been many instances in the history of science where the observation of an anomalous phenomenon came before an explanatory theory, and some commonly accepted non-psi phenomena (e.g. gravity) today still lack a perfectly satisfactory, undisputed theory. Isaac Newton, when formulating his theory of gravity, stated that he could not hypothesize a mechanism for it - but it still became a foundation of physics.

Theories abound in parapsychology for aspects of psi phenomena, though there is not any one that is comprehensive and widely accepted within parapsychology.

It is not necessary to be a licensed psychiatrist or acquainted with clinical psychology to test the validity of psi. The field of parapsychology overlaps many disciplines, including physics and biology, and often physicists, engineers and others trained in the hard sciences, in conjunction with stage magicians and other experts in deception, are in a better position to design experiments for certain types of phenomena than are psychiatrists or psychologists.

Concluding inexplicability from lack of existing explanation constitutes the well-known fallacy Argument from Ignorance.

The opinion of parapsychologists regarding the overall evaluation of the body of evidence to date is divided. As noted above, some parapsychologists are skeptic and do not believe that there is anything observed so far which cannot ultimately be explained within the existing framework of known science. Probably a majority of parapsychologists believe in the likelihood, or at least the possibility, of actual psi phenomena, though there is a range of attitudes toward the evidence.

Regarding the evidence, the rule of the thumb of the skeptical community is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since skeptics may consider paranormal claims extraordinary, they may think that the evidence needs to be better than what normally would be required. However, this puts the responsibility for investigating seemingly paranormal phenomena squarely on the shoulders of proponents and "internal" skeptics. Not only is research conducted by "external" critics and skeptics useful to the field as a whole, but it also imparts a kind of craft knowledge to critics and skeptics that makes their criticism and counter-hypotheses more productive and more useful. Further many of the counter-hypotheses proposed by skeptics are so unparsimonious as to be extraordinary claims as well, and in that case, those counter-hypotheses also require extraordinary evidence.

Most people use this approach to evidence in everyday life. For instance, if the news reports that the president of the USA has just arrived in South Korea for a state visit, most people will take this at face value. The news is considered a fairly reliable source of information, and the president visiting a country such as South Korea is not an extraordinary claim. However, if the same news broadcast later mentioned that a 92-year-old man has improved the world record time on the marathon by half an hour, many reasonable people would require more evidence, even despite the assumed reliability of the source, since the claim is extraordinary. This analogy might be flawed, however. In the case of the 92 year old man, we have positive evidence gained from a lifetime of experience and the reassurance of physiologists that this feat is indeed extraordinary (i.e., improbable). When it comes to parapsychology, however, some would argue we have no positive evidence that it is improbable, only our own cultural bias and a subjective sense that psi abilities are extraordinary. Hence, some would argue, it is not the sort of extraordinary claim which necessarily needs more evidence than a mundane claim.

Some parapsychologists agree with critics that the field has not yet reached the degree of consistent repeatability of experimental results needed for general consensus. John Beloff, in his book Parapsychology: A Concise History, notes the evanescent – some have said the apparently evasive – nature of psychic phenomena over time, and that the range of phenomena observable in a given era seems to be culturally dependent.

For example, in earlier times, psychic research studied physical phenomena demonstrated by spiritualist mediums that, according to the reports passed down to us in the literature, far surpassed anything that any of today's "psychics" can demonstrate. Skeptics consider this more evidence of the non-existence of psi phenomena. Frequently this particular claim is the result of the proponent community having cut itself off, because of political pressures of conforming to the scientific Zeitgeist, from the community of modern mediums and psychics who operate today. Whether or not the phenomena being exhibited by modern day mediums can provide proof of traditional notions of spirituality or can be attributed to the operation of mundane psychological processes is mostly an open question, due to the lack of research. So it is possible that physical phenomena is being exhibited today, but to what cause the effects may be attributed is an open question, even among parapsychologists.

Many people, especially like 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; and so believe that continued research is justified. Easily recovered critical historical research reveals these individuals were certainly 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 has 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". All of the early experiments that were conducted by noted men of science in Italy and Germany with Eusapia Palladino "proved positive".

Skeptics say that 'enthusiastic' parapsychologists prefer to dismiss proof-oriented research, intended primarily to verify the existence of psi phenomena and, as in the past, jumped to "process-oriented" research, intended to explore the parameters and characteristics of psi phenomena. Skeptics also claim that parapsychology has a history of repeated psi failures and investigational shortcomings which have given it a poor scientific reputation.

Other objections to parapsychology

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

Psi Phenomena as a Violation of the Laws of Physics or Nature

Some critics claim that the existence of psi phenomena would violate "the known laws of physics", and some of these critics believe that this is reason enough that such phenomena should not be studied. Parapsychologists respond that human knowledge of the "laws of physics" is incomplete (for instance Newtonian Mechanics, General Relativity, the Standard Model and Quantum Mechanics even when taken together do not add up to a complete description of how the universe works). A "physical law" is only a mathematical description of the way natural systems behave. If natural systems are seen to behave differently than predicted by physics, then physics needs to be revised. Also, it is unknown whether the known laws of physics are actually violated by psi, or whether psi simply operates in a manner which current physics does not describe, much as the workings of the interior of an atom cannot be described by Einstein's theory of general relativity. So if the existence of psi phenomenon are ever undeniably proved, explaining how they work might not require revising the known laws of physics, but might merely require their extension. Precognition, for example, would challenge commonly held (though unproved) notions about causality and the unidirectional nature of time on a macroscopic scale. But such notions do not hold the status of "Physical Laws," as for example in the case of the law of conservation of energy. Beliefs about how nature works are already being challenged by modern physical theories, quite apart from psi phenomena. Skeptics and parapsychologists alike generally agree that, as per Occam's Razor, simple explanations should be preferred for any resulting theories of psi. Some parapsychologists are critical of skeptics' explanations of parapsychological results (for instance that they are the result of fraud) specifically because such explanations are unparsimonious. It often stretches the imagination to believe that parapsychological results are due to fraud or other conventional explanations. Conventional explanations, many parapsychologists believe, should also conform to Occam's Razor. Then there are others, both skeptics and proponents, who agree that nature itself is frequently unparsimonious. After all, it would be much simpler if nothing at all existed, or if only one type of particle existed, or if there were only one dimension of space (as may exist in a black hole).

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:

Even "insiders" in the parapsychological community worry about the possible harm that naive belief in paranormal phenomena can have on individuals, culture and societies. A great deal of effort has been put into the development of expertise in dealing with reported experiences both in a clinical sense, and as a topic of investigation. Unfortunately organized skepticism and the "taboo" that exists against serious research on such phenomena has impeded the ability of many researchers -- both skeptics and proponents -- from doing the kinds of research that would allow evidence-based therapeutic interventions.

Parapsychology as a Waste of Resources

Some critics of Parapsychology believe that parapsychology should not be funded because it is a waste of resources which would be better spent on other activities. Some of these critics feel so strongly about this that they engage in activism to try to prevent or remove funding from psi research. Parapsychology proponents contend that because of this prejudice, there are few parapsychologists and progress in the field has been slow. Thus, 400 million people may experience what they believe are psychic phenomena, and may suffer in their daily lives from psychological problems caused by their experiences. While even most parapsychologists would agree there are more urgent problems to solve, they argue that ignoring these reported experiences does a grave disservice to people everywhere.

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.

Patent #5830064, "Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and thereby controlling an output," was granted by the US Patent Office on Nov 3rd, 1998 to inventors including several researchers from the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) center. The patent in no way relies on the existence of psi phenomena, but in the description the inventors do suggest that "One application of the present invention is the investigation of anomalous interaction between an operator and random physical systems, whether by serious scientists or curious members of the public who would like to conduct experiments on their own."

Throughout the history of the investigations of physical mediums there seems to be no record of simply applying wet paint to a medium's hands and feet to ensure control and eliminate fraud. However, it is naive to think one control would cover all cases.

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

Foonotes

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.
Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience, National Science Foundation, 2000.

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.

Categories:

Misplaced Pages