| Parapsychology |
Website Links For Parapsychology |
Information AboutParapsychology |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT PARAPSYCHOLOGY | |
| parapsychology | |
| paranormal | |
| pseudoscience | |
| psychologyparapsychology | |
| paranormal | |
| pseudoscience | |
| psychology | |
| psychological schools | |
| paranormal | |
|
Parapsychology is the scientific study of the evidence of mental awareness or influence of external objects without interaction from known physical means. Most objects of study fall within the realm of "mind-to-mind" influence (such as Extra-sensory Perception , Folie A Deux and Telepathy ), "mind-to-environment" influence (such as Psychokinesis ) and "environment-to-mind" (such as Hauntings ). Collectively, these abilities are often referred to as " Psionics ". The scientific validity of parapsychology research is a matter of frequent dispute and criticism, and is generally referred to as a Pseudoscience , refuted by numerous rigorous scientific studies. Nonetheless, many eminent scientists have been firm believers that the field is worthy of analysis, such as Wolfgang Pauli (See Pauli Effect ). TYPES OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY The phenomena in question fall into two broad groups. Extra-sensory Perception (ESP) is also known as Anomalous Cognition , and includes Telepathy , Clairvoyance , Clairaudience , Clairalience , Clairgustance , Clairsentience , Precognition , Postcognition , Psychometry , and Dream Transference . Anomalous Operation includes Psychokinesis (in the past referred to as Telekinesis ), Pyrokinesis , Psychogenesis , Out-of-body Experience s, Astral Projection , Near-death Experience s, Mediumship , and Reincarnation . The general term " Psi phenomena" (or the somewhat older term, "psychic phenomena," which was said to be the "psi factor" in an experiment) covers all of these categories. HISTORY, CLAIMS, AND EVALUATION STATUS OF THE FIELD The standing of the field of parapsychology has always been controversial within the scientific community. As its name indicates, parapsychology is sometimes considered a sub-branch of Psychology , and this has arisen historically since it involved the study of apparent mental faculties. In its modern form, parapsychology is an interdisciplinary field, which has attracted physicists, engineers, and biologists, as well as psychologists and those from other sciences. (For an argument that parapsychological phenomena may not in fact be psychological, see Peter J. King 's "Parapsychology without the 'Para' (or the 'Psychology')" (''Think'' 3, 2003, pp 43 53).) Parapsychology often involves the use of new and untested technologies and methods such as Neurofeedback , Neuro-linguistic Programming , Past Life Regression and so on. Many people are not satisfied with the term, and have proposed alternatives, such as "psi research" (similar to the older term "psychical research"), but "parapsychology" is the term that has gained the greatest acceptance today. One organization involved in the field, the Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the American Association For The Advancement Of Science (AAAS). {Link without Title} . At present (2006) there are about two hundred and seventy five members in the Parapsychological Association. How science views the field In the scientific disciplines, there is a belief that all claims should be treated with Scientific Skepticism . Mainstream scientists generally argue that after examining psi claims for over a century, there has been significant difficulty assertaining significant positive evidence for such claims. Many in the scientific community believe that parapsychology is not a real science, that psi phenomena do not exist, and that parapsychology is a Pseudoscience . Many scientists and skeptical observers of the field believe 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 participants; or perhaps some combination of the above. One of the most famous cases in psychology that illustrates being misled by one's hopes is that of Clever Hans . Mr. Wilhelm von Osten, who promoted the horse, did not intend to defraud anyone, but he fooled himself and large audiences nevertheless. {Link without Title} Parapsychologists disagree with this assessment. Many have been formally trained in science, and are familiar with the scientific method. Statistician Jessica Utts has shown in a number of papers that: :"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted." {Link without Title} The precise percentage of scientists holding negative views about parapsychology is unclear, since surveys targeting this group are far less common than those targeting the general population. In his article Save Our Science: Paranormal Phenomena and Zetetics , skeptic Henri Broch complains: :"These data are based on an investigation on the belief in parasciences among Frenchmen (published in 1986). Contrary to what might have been thought, the level of belief in the paranormal is directly proportional to the level of education, whatever the religious persuasion may be. Those with higher scientific degrees fare slightly better, although their level of belief is superior to [greater than the average!" 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 {Link without Title} 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 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 higher incidents 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, 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 to make 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 {Link without Title} .) 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 first-hand 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 first-hand 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. Interpretation of the evidence Many scientists 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 any 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 that are based on knowledge of the peer-reviewed, published literature of the field. Criticism and blanket statements based on hearsay are not productive and not encouraged in any area of science. Other scientists hold that there is a small amount of data from properly controlled experiments that can be trusted for a small number of psi phenomena. They hold that this evidence is not definitive, but suggestive enough to warrant further research. {Link without Title} Other scientists, who are familiar with the published literature of the field of parapsychology, believe that a great deal of evidence has been collected, which, if it addressed more conventional phenomena, would be sufficient to provide proof. Criticisms of parapsychological research
Responses from parapsychologists to criticisms
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-hypothesis, 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 Psionic powers 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. This is an old argument. See (Rawcliffe 1952, pages 441 & 442). The question whether or not each of these experiments themselves have been efficiently carried out is avoided. 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". This same argument did not satisfy the United States Department Of Defense when Remote Viewing experiments were being funded for 20 million dollars. The project was terminated for lack of results. Instead, many 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. Time will tell whether these results prove to be evanescent as well. Unfortunately, what complicates the "time will tell" hope that many skeptics and proponents have is the lack of funds available for research from either the conventional or the "paranormalist" perspectives, and the negative impact on career advancement that an interest in these phenomena -- even from a skeptical point of view -- can have. The past history of repeated psi failures and short comings has given parapsychology a poor reputation. Early ''Scientific American'' challenge The offering of prizes for demonstrations is not new to the field. Circa 1924 , '' Scientific American '' magazine offered a $5000 prize to anyone who could produce any "visible psychic manifestation." Medium Mina Crandon , known in the literature as "Margery," made a bid and was tested by a committee set up by the editorial staff. Her performance was such that the committee members were split, four negative to one positive in their opinions. The magazine published the mixed report in its November 1924 issue, no prize was awarded, and the competition was declared closed the following year. In the early 1900s , the then well-known stage magician Howard Thurston, who had earlier studied to be a medical missionary, was impressed by the mysterious table lifting demonstrations of medium Eusapia Palladino . He advertised in the '' New York Times '' his offer of $1000 to charity in the name of any fellow conjuror who could duplicate this feat. He had no takers. In 1910 Eusapia Palladino publicily acknowledged she used tricks to an American reporter. Today many methods of table lifting and other seance secrets are well known to master conjurors, but kept secret as demanded by their art.(Rinn 1950, Christopher 1975 p.208) Other objections to parapsychology There are a variety of other objections to parapsychology as well.
: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 "laws of nature" are simply summaries of existing scientific knowledge and do get revised from time to time during the course of scientific progress, in addition they are not so well understood that with them one could confidently predict the non existence of Psi (Consider quantum mechanics). If the existence of psi phenomenon were ever proved, explaining how they work might require revising or extending the known laws of physics. Precognition, for example, would challenge commonly held notions about causality and the unidirectional nature of time. However, these commonly held notions are often not physical laws, and 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' frequently-uninvestigated claims about fraud, or the application of conventional hypotheses specifically because these claims are unparsimonious. Conventional explanations, many parapsychologists believe, should also conform to Occam's Razor. Then there are others, both skeptics and proponents, who agree that even in mainstream science nature itself is frequently unparsimonious.
:Some believe that paranormal phenomena ''should not'' be studied, either because they are forbidden by their religious orientation, or because they believe that to do so 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 seemingly 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. {Link without Title}
: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'' Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience , National Science Foundation , 2000.: :"Concerns have been raised, especially in the science community, about widespread belief in paranormal phenomena. Scientists (and others) have observed that people who believe in the existence of paranormal phenomena may have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Their beliefs may indicate an absence of critical thinking skills necessary not only for informed decision making in the voting booth and in other civic venues (for example, jury duty), but also for making wise choices needed for day-to-day living." Even "insiders" in the parapsychological community worry about the possible harm that naive belief in paranormal phenomena can have on individuals, on culture and on societies. A great deal of effort has been put into the notion of developing 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. Although under the heading 'paranormal phenomena' the report lists topics such as astrology, UFOs, and the Loch Ness Monster, it also lumps in belief in ESP and, by implication, most parapsychology.
:Some believe that parapsychology should not be funded because it is a waste of resources that 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. Psychic Detective s may waste valuable police resources. One of the negative -- and probably unintended -- consequences of this point of view is that while 10% of the world's population or over 400 million individuals on the planet, may experience what they believe are psychic phenomena, and may suffer in their daily lives from psychological problems caused by their experiences, few scientists on the planet are able to find the resources to really investigate the phenomena, and therefore very little real knowledge exists that can be used to help these experiencers. While even most parapsychologists would agree there are more urgent problems to solve, having no research address these reported experiences does a grave disservice to people everywhere. OTHER INTERESTING FACTS
Critics of parapsychology
SEE ALSO
REFERENCES
FURTHER READING
EXTERNAL LINKS Independent research organizations
University research organizations
Other
|
|
|