🚀 go-pugleaf

[]

In the U.S., there are perhaps three dozen full time researchers who have 
actually performed psi experiments and are familiar with the relevant 
literature.  By "performed an experiment," I don't mean they've tossed 
a few dice or played with some ESP cards once.  I mean scientists, 
trained in traditional experimental methods, affiliated with recognized 
academic, industrial, or private research laboratories, who are
knowledgeable about conducting proper experimental programs.  Most of these
scientists and scholars are members of the Parapsychological Association, 
a professional organization affiliated with the AAAS.  There is a big
difference between the public's view of psychic research and actual
academic research.  If you get your information about this field from the 
newspapers, TV, magazines or popular books, you are getting entertainment, 
not science.

On the other hand, the vast majority of those who make their livings 
"debunking" parapsychology have not and do not conduct their own 
psi experiments, with very few exceptions.  Why?  Because (a) they a priori do
not believe in the phenomena and therefore feel that such experiments would
be a waste of time, and (b) because many don't know how to conduct
proper experiments in the first place.  For example, look at the breakdown 
between scientists vs. entertainers listed as Fellows of CSICOP in the 
Skeptical Inquirer.  

Who is likely to have more reliable information?  Scientists working in the 
field or entertainers who make their living debunking that field?

A number of uninformed and unsupported statements about psi research 
have appeared in this newsgroup.  For example,

    Parapsychology is the belief system, as demonstrated by the many
    cases of experimenter fraud motivated by an obviously preconceived belief
    that in the end the subject matter would prove to be real.

Fact: There have been two celebrated cases of experimenter fraud in 
parapsychology.  Both cases were discovered and reported by parapsychologists.  
In any case, the extent of experimenter fraud in parapsychology is no greater 
(and I believe, less so) than that found in other scientific disciplines.  
Witness the dozens of fraudulent medical research studies brought to light 
in the last few decades.  

    Parapsychology is a pseudo-scientific extension of the nineteenth century 
    cult of spiritualism, as is made clear by, for instance, William James' 
    summary of the early work of the Society for Psychical Research

Fact: William James was one of the founders of the American Society for
Psychical Research.  While it is true that psychical research 100 years ago
was primarily concerned with spiritualism, James never considered it a
pseudoscience, nor did Freud or Jung, or dozens of other prominent scientists
involved in the field.

    There is still not a single repeatable experiment to demonstrate the
    existence of any psychical phenomenon, after over a century of ostensibly
    scientific work.  

Fact: There are several repeatable experiments that do demonstrate psi
phenomena (see references below).  The real issue is the degree of robustness
required for the demonstration.  If "every single time" is the criterion,
then the criticism is correct.  However, there are very few experiments
outside of Physics 101 that work every time.  Virtually all experiments
involving living systems (biological, medical, psychological, you name it)
are replicable only *to a degree*.  With such systems, one can only talk
about the likelihood of an effect, often in terms of odds against 
chance results.  With this as a criterion, then there are indeed psi 
experiments that in the aggregate are repeatable.  Note: this doesn't
mean that Joe Sixpack will automatically be able to conduct a successful psi
experiment.  But a sincere Joe Scientist probably can. 

    No legitimate science has ever suffered from this problem [lack of
    repeatable experiments].
    
Fact: The above statement illustrates profound ignorance about the history of
science and the varieties of activities called "science."

    Are we supposed to believe that psychical effects are somehow harder to
    study than nucleon shells.  If physics worked like parapsychology, we would
    all be making up rationalizations for the existence of the ether despite
    Michelson-Morley.

Fact: This writer seems to think that science is an orderly, logical
progression.  Need I remind you that all theories, models, and even
physical laws ARE in a very real sense, rationalizations?  Why do you suppose
that whimsical, metaphorical names like 'beauty' and 'charm' are used to 
represent certain properties of sub-atomic particles?  

Here are a few references mod.psi readers may like to read.

Child, I. L. (1985)  Psychology and anomalous observations:  The
    question of ESP in dreams.  American Psychologist, 40, 1219-1230.

Eisenberg, H. & Donderi, D. C.  (1979) Telepathic transfer of
    emotional information in humans.  Journal of Psychology, 103, 19-43.

Honorton, C. (1985)  Meta-analysis of psi ganzfeld research: A
    response to Hyman.  Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 51-92.

Hyman, R. (1985)  The Ganzfeld psi experiment: A critical
    appraisal. Journal of Parapsychology, 49, 3-50.

Jahn, R. G., Ed. (1981). The role of consciousness in the physical world.
    (AAAS Selected Symposium 57). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Jahn, R. G.  (1982) The persistent paradox of psychic phenomena: An
    engineering perspective.  Proceedings of the IEEE, 70, 136-170.

Jahn, R. G. & Dunne, B. J. (August, 1986)  On the quantum mechanics
    of consciousness, with application to anomalous phenomena.
    Foundations of Physics.

Ziemelis, Ugis.  (September, 1986) Quantum-mechanical reality, consciousness
    and creativity.  Canadian Research, 19, 62-72.