Controversy in Parapsychology
- What is parapsychology?
- Controversy in Parapsychology
- Parapsychology FAQ
- Is parapsychology science?
- Is parapsychology accepted?
- The scope of parapsychology
- Key terms in parapsychology
- The best argument for parapsychology
- The best argument against parapsychology
- Ganzfeld experiment
- History of the ganzfeld experiment
- ESP
- Survival hypothesis
Criticism of parapsychology has been intense during the 125 years since the the founding of the Society for Psychical Research in 1882. This has resulted in a continuous tightening of the scientific methods used in the field, in an attempt to eliminate any chance of subject fraud. Current methods such as those used in the Ganzfeld experiment meet the highest scientific standards.
Skeptics like Ray Hyman say that replications of the Ganzfeld and other tests are still necessary before the existence of psi can be accepted as a scientific fact. For the most part, however, the criticisms of modern parapsychology center around highly technical disputes concerning whether the results should be interpreted as indicating psi. The results themselves are undeniably positive.
This page covers all types of criticisms, and it is intended to give a general overview of the kinds of criticisms which have been leveled against parapsychology, and how many of them were answered by parapsychologists.
General context
Skeptics often cite instances of fraud, studies which have been flawed or which might have had flaws, religious and psychological need, or simple bias to explain parapsychological results and why they are taken seriously.
Why, then, are so many people predisposed to believe that ESP exists? In part, such beliefs may stem from understandable misperceptions, misinterpretations, and selective recall. But some people also have an unsatisfied hunger for wonderment, an itch to experience the magical. In Britain and the United States, the founders of parapsychology were mostly people who, having lost their religious faith, began searching for a scientific basis for believing in the meaning of life and in life after death (Alcock, 1985; Beloff, 1985).
Parapsychologists argue that these views indicate a lack of familiarity with the published literature. The skeptics seem to rely on analyses written by other skeptics, which often assume a priori that there are flaws in all parapsychological experiments, and that the results can be explained in this way. Parapsychologists usually welcome criticism which is not biased ideologically or psychologically, and which takes into account the parapsychological literature (Radin, 1997 p. 205-227).
Parapsychology has been tarnished by the naive belief in paranormal phenomena which exists in the general culture, but parapsychologists have attempted to isolate their field from these views. J.B. Rhine warned that
Parapsychologists had better give some thought to the fact that their kind of psi is no longer nearly as securely under their own social control as in the past. The time has come when we who work with psi need to decide whether we really do know where we belong and just what our territory is. - - - Is there any other experimental science that rests on such a slight basis of uniformity and standardization? (Rhine, 1972, 175; Bauer, 1984).
Parapsychologists and their critics both acknowledge the need to be critical of the methods, conclusions, and theory both of parapsychological researchers and their critics. Anyone who commentates on parapsychology should be intimately acquainted with the vast parapsychological literature, and have an unbiased attitude to the subject. Few if any skeptics of parapsychology meet these criteria (Radin, 1997 p. 205-227).
Common criticisms and responses
Anecdotal evidence
Anecdotal evidence can be extremely unreliable, and critics have said that parapsychology relies too heavily upon it. People's memories can be faulty, and they may also be falsified by various psychological factors, which include hope, fear, desire, and the need to make an experience understandable. Thus, skeptics say that witness reports are intrinsically unreliable, and that any paranormal elements probably have non-paranormal explanations.
This criticism has two flaws. First, there are methods, such as comparing multiple witness reports of the same incident, to minimize error in anecdotal evidence. For example, in case studies of near-death experiences the anecdotes can be checked for similarities between the reports of people who have had no prior knowledge of the phenomenon. Second, a lot of the modern evidence for psi phenomena is based on laboratory experiments which do not depend on the observational powers of the participants. In cases such as the effects of the focused attention of large numbers of people on random number generators, the subjects may not even know they are taking part in a parapsychological experiment. The fact that some body of evidence is anecdotal does not mean it is worthless or unreliable. But such evidence does not stand alone as evidence of psi (Radin, 1997).
Insignificant results
The results of laboratory psi experiments such as those which use the ganzfeld procedure or tests of presentiment using galvanic skin response usually have results which are only a few percentage points above chance (often between 2 and 10). These results become apparent only by use of statistics. Critics have said that these positive results are so close to statistical insignificance that they are unconvincing.
In most scientific fields, it is sufficient to show statistical significance, even if this significance is not very great. The usual threshold is odds against chance of one in 20 or less (<.05). However, some parapsychological experiments have achieved results which are much greater. Meta-analysis has shown that these results cannot be explained by presentation bias or the file drawer problem. The fields of biomedicine, sociology, psychology and biology, among others, would all be in doubt if they were judged in the same way as parapsychology (Radin, 1997 p. 219).
However, this criticism misses the broader perspective. Parapsychology has accumulated large amounts of field research showing the existence of phenomena such as telepathy and precognition. Laboratory experiments are only an attempt to find out if those anecdotal, spontaneous, or otherwise uncontrolled phenomena will still occur in controlled laboratory conditions. Because parapsychological experiments show that similar phenomena take place in the laboratory and in the field, the results are convincing. If parapsychology were merely a collection of field observations, or only a collection of small laboratory anomalies, then the results would be much weaker.
Fraud
Critics have said that many parapsychological experiments have not been properly controlled to ensure that subjects could not commit fraud. Parapsychological research naturally attracts magicians who try to trick parapsychologists into certifying their tricks as real. There are several historical cases where parapsychologists have been tricked in this way.
It's true that parapsychology has sometimes encountered fraud, either on the part of the experimenter or - much more often - the subjects. No scientific experiment can completely rule out fraud. Ray Hyman said in 1984 on the science program Nova,
Hansel has a tendency to believe that if any experiment can be shown to be susceptible to fraud, then that immediately means it no longer can be used for evidence for psi. I do sympathize with the parapsychologists who rebut this by saying, well, that can be true for any experiment in the world, because there's always some way you can think of how fraud could have gotten into the experiment. You cannot make a perfectly 100 percent fraud-proof experiment. This would apply to all science (From a transcript quoted in Radin, 1997 p. 222).
The standards of fraud-prevention are much higher in parapsychology than in other scientific disciplines. They have been improved over the years in response to criticism, until even skeptics trained in magical methods find no fault with the more sophisticated experiments such as the autoganzfeld.
PARAPSYCHOLOGY, widely dismissed as a sloppy pseudoscience, makes far more use of rigorous experimental methods than other scientific disciplines, according to a study of the prevalence of "blind" methodology in research.
Blind techniques were originally designed to stop investigators in clinical trials affecting the outcome of their experiments (Matthews, 1998).
During this process of tightening protocols, the statistical size of the effects which are supposedly caused by psi have decreased slightly, in accord with the skeptical hypothesis that if a perfect parapsychological experiment were run, it would conclude that there is no psi effect. This decrease is similar to the decreases seen in other fields of science such as physics. Effect size decreases due to larger sample sizes and better experiments. The psi effect has remained highly statistically significant, highly stable over time, and the effect size is similar in highly controlled and less well-controlled experiments.
Parapsychology ensures against the possibility of incompetence or fraud in the same way as other fields of science. Experiments are replicated in independent laboratories or by independent field researchers. The results of the studies and the methods used to achieve them are published, so that they can receive critical analysis and better study protocols and designs can be used in future experiments. There is no evidence that the incidence of fraud is any greater in parapsychology than in other scientific fields (Radin, 1997). Marcello Truzzi, a skeptic and founder of the Society for Scientific Exploration, (see) director for the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research and founding co-chairman of the skeptical organization Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry),
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.[...]Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic (Truzzi, 1987).
Lack of independent replication
One of the most common skeptical rejoinders to parapsychological claims is that while some parapsychological experiments do have positive results which cannot be explained, those results lack independent replication. Such replication is one of the fundamental requirements of scientific investigation. Ray Hyman says that
Before we abandon relativity and quantum mechanics in their current formulations, we will require more than a promissory note. We will want, as is the case in other areas of science, solid evidence that these findings can, indeed, be produced under specified conditions (Hyman 1996).
Of the results of the autoganzfeld he says:
Honorton's experiments have produced intriguing results. If...independent laboratories can produce similar results with the same relationships and with the same attention to rigorous methodology, then parapsychology may indeed have finally captured its elusive quarry (Hyman 1991, p. 392).
The basic findings of parapsychological experiments have remained constant, even as methodologies have changed from Rhine's card guessing and dice throwing experiments to the ganzfeld, the autoganzfeld, and psychokinetic influence of RNGs. Basic laboratory parapsychological experiments have had high numbers of replications, which has allowed for meta-analysis. For example, the Stanford Research Institute remote viewing experiments undertaken between 1973 and 1988 returned odds of more than a billion billion to one against the results being due to chance. The SRI studies were replicated by the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory (Radin, 1997 p. 91-109, 2006 p. 278).
The file drawer problem
Critics have speculated that a "file drawer" problem may exist in parapsychology, meaning that only positive results have been reported, while null and negative results have remained filed away.
Meta-analysis allows a researcher to estimate how many unpublished studies would be required to invalidate the findings. This procedure reveals that there would have to be a preposterously large number of such unpublished studies to account for the results. Skeptics such as Susan Blackmore and Ray Hyman have agreed in various cases that this is not a good reason to reject parapsychological results (Radin, 2006 p. 104, 112-115). In addition, the the main peer-reviewed journals in the field of parapsychology maintain a strict policy of publishing all results, whether they confirm or disconfirm the existence of psi.
The "psi assumption"
When an experiment turns up an anomaly which looks, for instance, like telepathy, a parapsychologist may say that psi activity was discovered. A skeptic may then say that the parapsychologist has committed an error by assuming that the anomaly is the result of psi, rather than simply being an anomaly. Critics say that even if there are laboratory parapsychological experiments with results which are statistically significant, this only means that there was something causing the result. Any number of mundane things could have interfered with the experiment, such as flaws in the design, incorrect statistics, or subject fraud. Since it is always better to make the more conservative assumption (per Occam's Razor), assuming the results are due to psi is unjustified (Carroll).
According to Ray Hyman,
[Even if] we were to find that we could reproduce the findings [of certain parapsychological experiments] under specified conditions, this would still be a far cry from concluding that psychic functioning has been demonstrated. This is because the current claim is based entirely upon a negative outcome -- the sole basis for arguing for ESP is that extra-chance results can be obtained that apparently cannot be explained by normal means (Hyman, 1996).
This might be true if parapsychology were actually about observation of statistical anomalies. But in the words of Dean Radin,
[Parapsychologists] design experiments to test experiences that people have reported throughout history. If rigorous tests for what we have called [say] "telepathy" result in effects that look like, sound like, and feel like the [often more impressive] experiences reported in real life, then call it what you will, but the experiments confirm that this common experience is not an illusion (Radin, 1997 p. 210) (Radin, December 26, 2006).
"Psi" denotes an unknown factor, which may be within the realm of current scientific knowledge. But experiments show that psi seems to have some features which current science cannot explain. For example, results at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory often included a precognitive element. These studies obtained very statistically significant results (Radin, 1997 p. 91-109). Precognitive anomalies have been observed many other studies as well. A study by Dean Radin of galvanic skin responses showed a precognitive response to pictures which had not yet appeared on a computer screen (Radin & May, July 31, 2000; Radin, July 19, 2000, July 31, 2000). It does not really look as if psi can be explained by currently known science, and because of this the criticism that psi might merely be an anomaly seems unlikely. On the other hand, it is true that no one knows what psi is, and so although we can can describe some of its charicteristics, we cannot positively say that a given statistical anomaly is the result of psi.
Where's Superman?
Critics of parapsychology wonder why, if psi is real, psychics don't make a lot of money predicting the outcome of such things as sports events or casino games, or even controlling them with psychokinesis.
Casino games, for instance, are essentially the same as laboratory psi experiments, except that they are profit-oriented. (Radin 1997, p. 175).
Real psi effects are usually very weak, and do not produce a large enough advantage to counteract the bias against the gambler which casinos build into their games.[1] (see Radin, 1997 p. 175-189). According to Dr. Radin,
The theoretical house advantage for some casino games is fairly small, e.g., about 1% for optimally-played craps. This means that over the long term, a good craps player might get back 99 cents for each dollar they play. If they hit a "hot streak," they might even win some money. In practice, the actual house take for most games is fairly large (about 25% for table games) because people rarely play consistently, they reinvest their winnings, and the casino environment is intentionally designed to be noisy and visually distracting. Thus, for a given psychic to make any notable differences in long-term casino profits, they would have to (a) understand the strategies of each game they play, (b) consistently play according to those strategies, (c) stop when they are ahead, and (d) consistently apply strong, reliable psi. Over the long term casino profits are predictably stable, but given that some psi effects are known to be genuine, in principle a good, consistent psychic (who knows how to play the casino games) might make some money by gambling. In addition, many people applying weak psi may cause small fluctuations in casino profits, but testing this would require analyzing an enormous amount of casino data, and such data is difficult to obtain (Radin, December 26, 2006).
Known laws of physics
Psi violates the known laws of physics. This criticism used to be very common.
Humans do not actually know what the laws of physics are. Newtonian Mechanics, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together cannot fully describe the workings of the universe. Dark matter and dark energy are recent discoveries, which will require unknown adjustments or additions to physical theories. Perhaps psi is another anomaly which will eventually be integrated into the part of the universe which can be mathematically described and predicted. This might not require revising known physics, but merely extending established theory. Precognition challenges common assumptions about the unidirectional flow of time and causality. But these assumptions are not known to be physical laws (Radin, December 26, 2006, also see Radin 1997: 221-222).
A danger to society
Some feel that parapsychology represents a danger to society. According to Dr. Jeffrey Mishlove, Director of the Intuition Network, Institute of Noetic Sciences, psychological factors can sometimes account for rejection of parapsychological results. These can include fear that normal ego boundaries will be lost through telepathy, fear of madness, or merely fear that parapsychology will open the doors to a flood of superstition and pseudoscience. Fear of the extreme empathy which telepathy might bring can also be a factor (Radin, December 26, 2006; National Science Foundation, 2000).
This is not a scientific position. On a social level, however, the results of accepting parapsychological results as real are unknown. Some parapsychological results are so extraordinary that if understood and controlled they might revolutionize human thinking and ability, with unpredictable consequences.
Relation to other fields
Critics say that if psi were real, it would have been detected as anomalies in other fields. The isolation of parapsychology from other parts of science may indicate that the paranormal anomalies it studies are not real. Quantum physicists are not bothered by an "experimenter effect," which causes their phenomena to be dependent on who is doing the testing. Nor do they have to keep quantum skeptics out of the laboratory during experiments. Physicists and other scientists might be completely unaware of parapsychological results if none of them ever read literature on the subject. This isolation is highly suspicious. It suggests that even if parapsychologists are practicing good science, they are probably looking for effects which are not there. James Alcock says that,
Physicists and paraphysicists do not overlap in their research. Physicists do not find it necessary to turn to the parapsychological literature to gain insight into problems that they are working on, nor do psychologists" (Alcock, 1981 p. 128).
Parapsychologists say that such isolation is not due to parapsychology's having nothing to contribute to other fields, but because it has largely been ignored. This results from general bias caused by the radical nature of parapsychology's findings, and from a lack of any theory which predicts or explains psi. Cultural bias also exists, which serves to further isolate the field (Hess & Layne, 1992 p. 191-222).
One might expect psychology to be the first field to discover anomalies which require the hypothesis of psi. Mass hallucination, the behavior of mobs and cults, the "transference" effect from patient to psychologist, and many other unexplained psychological anomalies might eventually be shown to involve psi.
Parapsychologists also say that they can contribute to understanding in areas such as quantum physical understanding of possible interaction of human consciousness with matter. Robert G Jahn, professor of aerospace sciences and dean emeritus of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Princeton University, while writing about the effects of human consciousness on quantum theory, said
I think we have long since passed the place in high energy physics where we're examining the structure of a passive universe. I think we're into the domain where the interplay of consciousness in the environment is taking place on such a primary scale that we are indeed creating reality by any reasonable definition of the term (Talbot, 1991, p. 139).
This perspective on quantum theory, which is not uncommon among physicists, falls inside the realm of parapsychological study, yet parapsychology is not invited into the debate.
According to the New York Times, quantum theorist Fritz Rohrlich of Syracuse University said that "Most physicists develop a somewhat schizophrenic view... On the one hand they accept the standard interpretation of quantum theory [that it is determined partially by observation]. On the other hand they insist on the reality of quantum systems even when these are not observed." (Brownse, 1986 p. C3)
Thus, interaction or interdependence between consciousness and matter may sometimes be seen as part of physics, but parapsychology is not considered important to the field.
Abuse of established theories
Parapsychologists have tried to legitimize or explain their results by attempting to fit them within established scientific theories, such as relativity theory; the concept of simultaneity; the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox; time reversal; tachyon particles; and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. James Alcock says that
"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." (Alcock, 1981, p. 111)
Alcock also said that
"Casual, almost flippant, references to [the Heisenberg uncertainty principle] 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" (Alcock, 1981, p. 114).
There are many speculations concerning the nature and physics of psi which circulate in the parapsychological community. But the field as a whole does not claim to understand what psi actually is. Although some types of psi are generally viewed in the field as genuine, any speculations as to its nature are due only to the many topical similarities which exist between observations of psi and observations in physics. But these similarities have not been proven to explain or predict psi, or even to be relevant to such phenomena. The similarities are suggestive however, leading parapsychologists and some quantum theorists to wonder whether they may someday lead to an understanding of physics which includes psi.
Some parapsychologists disagree, saying physics in its current form probably cannot explain psi.
"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." (Phillips, p. 7-8)
On the whole the scientific community has not accepted psi phenomena, or demonstrated much curiosity about them. Still, Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson said that
"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." (Josephson, 1979)
References
Alcock, J. E. (1981). Parapsychology: Science or Magic? Pergamon Press.
Bauer, E. (1984) Criticism and Controversy in Parapsychology - An Overview [Electronic Version] European Journal of Parapsychology, 1984, 5, 141-166.
Brownse, M. W. (1986, February 11). Quantum Theory: Disturbing Questions Remain Unresolved New York Times p. C3
Carroll, R. T. The Skeptic's Dictionary: Psi Assumption [Electronic Version].
Hess, D. & Layne, L. (eds.) (1992) DISCIPLINING HETERODOXY, CIRCUMVENTING DISCIPLINE: PARAPSYCHOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGICALLY Knowledge and Society Vol. 9: The Anthropology of Science and Technology. Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press. [Electronic Version]
Hyman, R. (1991). Comment. Statistical Science, 6, 389-392.
Hyman, R. (1996). The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality [Electronic Version] Skeptical Inquirer magazine, March/April 1996 Retrieved Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Josephson, B. (1979). The Iceland Papers Essentia Research Associates
Matthews, Robert (1998). Blind prejudice - "Hard" scientists believe they are immune to bias. NewScientist.com Magazine issue 2117 Retrieved July 3, 2007
National Science Foundation, 2000. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience [Electronic version]
Phillips, P. (DATE UNKNOWN) Some traps in dealing with our critics, Parapsychology Review 10(4) 7-8
Radin, D. (1997). The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena Harper Edge, ISBN 0-06-251502-0
Radin, D. (July 31, 2000) Time-reversed human experience: Experimental evidence and implications [Electronic version] Retrieved Dec 15, 2006
Radin, D., May, E. (July 31, 2000) Evidence for a retrocausal effect in the human nervous system [Electronic version] Retrieved Dec 15, 2006
Radin, D. (July 19, 2000) Evidence for an anomalous anticipatory effect in the autonomic nervous system [Electronic version] Retrieved Dec 15, 2006
Radin, D. (December 26, 2006) A helpful guide to parapsychology and the facts regarding that field Online FAQ Retrieved December 26, 2006
Talbot, M. (1991). The Holographic Universe HarperPerennial
Truzzi, M. (1987) On Pseudo-Skepticism A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi [Electronic version] Zetetic Scholar #12-13
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
