by dean@mind
In January 1987, mod.psi published a careful, scholarly response to a round of anti-parapsychology arguments that had appeared in the newsgroup. The author, writing from the address dean@mind, was almost certainly affiliated with a parapsychology research institution — possibly the Mind Science Foundation, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research laboratory, or one of the other academic groups active in the field at the time.
The post is unusual in early Usenet for its methodological rigor: it distinguishes between popular entertainment ("psychic TV") and genuine academic research, cites the Parapsychological Association's affiliation with the AAAS, names specific peer-reviewed publications and their findings, and addresses the replication problem in parapsychology by comparison with other sciences involving living systems. It also provides a substantial reference list, making it a starting point for anyone wishing to engage seriously with the field.
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?
Responding to Common Objections
A number of uninformed and unsupported statements about psi research have appeared in this newsgroup. Let me address the most common.
Claim: "Parapsychology is a belief system, as demonstrated by the many cases of experimenter fraud motivated by an obviously preconceived belief that 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.
Claim: "Parapsychology is a pseudo-scientific extension of the nineteenth century cult of spiritualism, as is made clear by 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 one hundred 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.
Claim: "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 — 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, there are indeed psi experiments that in the aggregate are repeatable. Note: this doesn't mean that any untrained person will automatically be able to conduct a successful psi experiment. But a sincere and properly trained researcher probably can.
Claim: "No legitimate science has ever suffered from this problem [lack of repeatable experiments]."
Fact: This statement illustrates a profound ignorance about the history of science and the varieties of activities called "science."
Claim: "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?
References
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.
Colophon
Written by dean@mind ([address removed]). Posted to mod.psi on January 12, 1987. Message-ID: [email protected]. Approved by the moderator at the University of Lowell.
Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. The references cited are to peer-reviewed publications; the ganzfeld research (Honorton 1985) and the PEAR laboratory work (Jahn 1982, Jahn & Dunne 1986) became central to academic debates about parapsychology through the 1990s.
🌲