Is parapsychology a pseudoscience?

[DoomMetal]

I have just read a volume in series of the book Understanding the World and in it is chapter on parapsychology by Mario Bunge.

Here are some of the points he makes:

Precognition violates the principle of antecedence ("causality"), according to which the effect does not happen before the cause.

Psychokinesis violates the principle of conservation of energy as well as the postulate that mind cannot act directly on matter. (If it did no experimenter could trust his own readings of his instruments.)

Parapsychology makes no use of any knowledge gained in other fields, such as physics and physiological psychology.

The hypotheses in parapsychology are inconsistent with some basic assumptions of factual science. In Particular, the very idea of a disembodied mental entity is incompatible with physiological psychology; and the claim that signals can be transmitted across space without fading with distance is inconsistent with physics. Worse, parapsychologists brush these inconsistences aside, claiming that they deal with nonphysical phenomena, so that physicists and over natural scientists are not competent to study them.

Parapsychology is extremely poor in problems: all its problems boil down to that of establishing that there are paranormal phenomena, i.e. facts that cannot be explained by science. Nor is this problem formulated in clear terms, and this because of the appalling theoretical indigence of parapsychology.

The typical parapsychologist does not excel at handling formal tools, in particular statistics. Thus he consistently selects the evidence ("optional stopping" of a sequence of trials); he does not distinguish a coincidence (accidental or spurious correlation) from a causal relation or a genuine correlation; and he is not fond of mathematical models or even or informal hypotheico-deductive systems.

An interesting conclusion by Bunge

Parapsychologists suggest no mechanisms and propose no theories. Compare this behaviour with that of a scientist, say an astronomer. If an astronomer were to find that a certain celestial object does not seem to "obey" the laws of celestial mechanics or astrophysics, he would feel it his duty to offer or invite some possible conjectures - e.g. that it is not an ordinary body but a quasar or black hole, a plasma or laser beam, or some other physical thing. He may conjecture that this thing of a new kind "obeys" laws not yet discovered - but not that it violates well established physical principles such as that of conservation of energy. The parapsychologist does no such thing: he accepts apparently anomalous phenomena as evidence for paranormal abilities, and takes no steps to explain them in terms of laws.

Has anyone heard of the First Law of Clairvoyance, or the Second Law of Telepathy, or the Third Law of Psychokinesis? And has anyone ever produced a perpetual motion engine driven by the mind, or a mathematical theory of spooks capable of making definite testable predictions?

In conclusion parapsychology is a pseudoscience paragon.

Any thoughts? Agree or disagree with Bunge?

Do you agree or disagree that parapsychology is a pseudoscience?

I have added a poll which will close in June. Interested in reading any responses.

 

[jj]

It could be a science, if it actually provided testable, verifiable results. But, to date, the wanderings of stochastic processes don't much impress me.

What's sad is that people don't understand that if you set a 5% confidence bound, one of 20 people, on average, will reach it, and that result will be meaningless.

 

[madurobob]

I think the third option in your poll is misguided, or out of place. If pseudoscience is wrapping something up in the trappings of science, but not adhering to scientific method, then parapsychology is clearly pseudo scientific. But, that doesn't mean parts of it cannot contain "real science". People use "real science" in their pseudo-scientific pursuits every day.

 

[JollyRoger]

Any thoughts?? two actually come to mind

1) there is a sucker born every minute.
2) a fool and their money are soon parted.

 

[sowhat]

Just a personal anicdote. My older brother and I were playing Twenty Questions many years ago. In the room with us happened to be a model I made of The USS Constitution.
On my brother's turn he said "Animal, vegetable and mineral", ( meaning the crew, wood of the ship, and the cannons ). I replied immediately, "The Constitution". because I had been thinking of using the same idea as my next question.
Some sort of ESP? I think not. Just two brothers thinking along similar lines in a particular time and place. Have never had, nor witnessed, any other instance in my very long life of anything that went beyond the norm of random chance.
The brain is so easily fooled, and excells at rationalizing what it wishes to believe.
Not an expert on this by any means, but I just don't buy the paranormal.

 

[xtifr]

It is possible to scientifically study something that doesn't exist, and even come up with useful scientific results. One classic example is the Michelson-Morley experiment^WP, which studied the Universal Aether and conclusively demonstrated that it didn't exist. However, it's hard to build a whole field onto the study of something that doesn't exist. Note, for example, the lack of degrees given in professional Aetherology.

 

[Bikewer]

Is anyone actually still doing parapsychology research? I mean, most all the university level facilities have been shut down.... The efforts conducted by both US and Soviet intelligence agencies were shut down as failures...

There may be some researcher with a project or two in the basement... But is there any actual organized research being done?

 

[DoomMetal]

Is anyone actually still doing parapsychology research? I mean, most all the university level facilities have been shut down.... The efforts conducted by both US and Soviet intelligence agencies were shut down as failures...

There may be some researcher with a project or two in the basement... But is there any actual organized research being done?

Yes, university facilities have been closing down related to parapsychology, and most no longer have much funding or publicity. It has become a dead end in most cases. There is a small research group known as the The Koestler Parapsychology Unit but they have not published anything in a long time.

The Parapsychological Association has been in trouble and have been asking for volunteers and donations the same with the Society for Psychical Research (SPR). The SPR stills publishes material but not as much as they used to.

As the other thread on this forum documents, whilst parapsychology is in the decline, anomalistic psychology is on the rise.

Anomalistic psychology is definitely on the rise. Not only is it now offered as an option on many psychology degree programmes, it is also an option on the most popular A2 psychology syllabus in the UK. Every year more books and papers in high quality journals are published in this area and more conferences and symposia relating to topics within anomalistic psychology are held. There is no doubt that anomalistic psychology is flourishing.

And what of parapsychology? The health of this discipline is somewhat harder to assess but apart from the occasional ray of hope offered by the latest false dawn, the situation does not look encouraging for parapsychologists. Funding for such research is inevitably more difficult to obtain in times of economic uncertainty. Scarce research funding will be invested in areas where the probability of success is high – and the history of parapsychology shows all too clearly that studies in this area often involve huge investments of time and resources and produce nothing in return. Without a genuine breakthrough in the near future, can parapsychology survive for much longer? Without psychic powers, it’s difficult to know but I certainly would not bet on it.

http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscie...c-psychology-–-and-the-fall-of-parapsychology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalistic_psychology

 

[DoomMetal]

I think the third option in your poll is misguided, or out of place. If pseudoscience is wrapping something up in the trappings of science, but not adhering to scientific method, then parapsychology is clearly pseudo scientific. But, that doesn't mean parts of it cannot contain "real science". People use "real science" in their pseudo-scientific pursuits every day.

The third option is not misleading in my opinion. Contrary to Bunge I actually believe parapsychology is a science as it does adhere to the scientific method. But yes it has suffered from much pseudoscience jargon. I will go into more detail into this at some point.

 

[DoomMetal]

Ok look at the evidence that parapsychology itself is a science:

http://www.pnarchive.org/docs/pdf/is_parapsychology_a_pseudoscience_french_article.pdf

Please see the points he makes on section where he measures up to see if parapsychology is a pseudoscience.

Chris French has summarized the evidence and came to the conclusion:

In general, parapsychology appears to meet the implicit criteria of science, to a greater or lesser extent, rather better than it meets the criteria of pseudoscience. There are a couple of the opposed criteria of pseudoscience that, arguably, parapsychology fully meets (e. g., it has no specific background or relatively confirmed theories; it has a world-view admitting elusive immaterial entities, such as disembodied minds) and some that quite clearly could not be directed at parapsychology at its best (e.g., evasion of the scrutiny afforded by peer review). With respect to the remainder of the criteria that are applicable, parapsychology fares reasonably well in terms of its scientific status, falling a little short on some of the benchmarks of good science but actually performing better than mainstream science on others.

He continues...

Determining the scientific status of parapsychology does not require any consideration of whether or not paranormal forces actually exist. Indeed, anomalistic psychologists adopt the working hypothesis that paranormal forces do not exist and attempt to explain reports of ostensibly paranormal experiences in terms of non-paranormal, usually psychological, factors. But, like all good scientific hypothesis, this working hypothesis is open to refutation and would indeed be refuted if parapsychologists ever successfully demonstrate a reliable paranormal phenomenon under controlled conditions.

Please note what he says in the above PDF is important. He concludes that parapsychology itself is a science as it does use the scientific method but the paranormal forces (PSI) in parapsychology have not been proven. Dishonest parapsychologists and "woomeisters" will probably quote mine French and attempt to make out he has said thing things like psychokinesis and all PSI have been scientifically proven. He hasn't said that. We need to distinguish parapsychology itself from the pseudoscientific conclusions from some of the parapsychologists.


and his final conclusion:

It may seem odd to suggest that parapsychology should still be judged to be a true science even if paranormal forces do not exist but there is little in any of the proposed sets of criteria for pseudoscience to argue against that position. Many hypothesis relating to ESP, PK, and even post mortem survival can be tested in the same way that hypothesis in other sciences are tested. But, after well over a century of systematic scientific research into these putative phenomena, reliable evidence that they actually exist still eludes us. This may reflect the fact that very few scientists have actually taken such claims seriously enough throughout this period to devote much to their investigation. Or it may simply be that each of these alleged phenomena is an illusion telling us more about our own psychology than about the fundamental nature of the universe.

As a psychologist, and proponent of anomalistic psychology French takes the latter view i.e. that psychological explains supposed "paranormal" experiences.

 

[madurobob]

Yes, it is entirely possible to do scientific parapsychology. I don't think anyone would argue that point. But, to a large extent, the parapsychology we encounter is pseudoscience. Predictability, falsifiability and reproducibility are ignored. Practitioners assume paranormal abilities or forces exist and try to explain things in terms of the existence of those abilities or forces.

My guess is there are not many folks doing parapsychology science because they quickly find there is nothing there to study.

Or, am I wrong? Have there been some important breakthroughs in parapsychology by scientists studying it? Have they proven the existence of something paranormal?

(note - I'm not saying that absence of results makes it pseudoscience, just that those investigating from a scientific standpoint found nothing and moved on, leaving the field to pseudo-scientists.)

 

[Jono]

I think we have enough problem with trying to use and apply actual branches of psychology in a scientific manner. What I've come to notice about parapsychology (and years ago I used to think it was the 'bomb') is that the only scientific application of it is when it is strictly about turning on technical-gadget A and then turning off technical-gadget A or B. Interestingly enough, it gets less falsifiable a 'discipline' the more psychology you throw into it.

 

[Jono]

Gah?! When did they include a course in parapsychology (and hypnology) at the University of Lund (for those who didn't know, it is a famous swedish institute of science)?!?

A few of the books included in the course:
Baars, Bernard (Ed.) (2001). In the Theatre of Consciousness, Oxford University Press (paperback). 210 s.
Cardeña, Etzel, Lynn, Steven Jay, & Krippner, Stanley (Eds.). (2000). Varieties of Anomalous Experience: Examining the Scientific Evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 476 s.
Irwin, Harvey & Watt, Caroline (2007). Introduction to Parapsychology. 5th ed. North Carolina: McFarland & Company. 320 s.

 

[mike3]

But don't you have to prove the paranormal phenomena exist in the first place before you worry about the mechanism behind them? Without any evidence of existence or capabilities, any talk of mechanism would be rank speculation.

If an astronomer were to find that a certain celestial object does not seem to "obey" the laws of celestial mechanics or astrophysics, he would feel it his duty to offer or invite some possible conjectures - e.g. that it is not an ordinary body but a quasar or black hole, a plasma or laser beam, or some other physical thing.

But parapsychology hasn't even gotten that far. It hasn't reliabily demonstrated anything above chance. So there isn't anything there to "seem to not 'obey' the laws".

 

[Dr B]

Not having an actual demonstrable object of study certainly makes Parapsychology unique among the sciences (at the very least).

I second what Mike3 says

 

[Miss_Kitt]

I think that parapsychology was once a science, but after many decades of genuine scientific research, the unavoidable conclusion was that there was, after all, nothing there. Like Q-rays and aether, psi phenomena were creations of postulating the existence of something based upon data that was faulty.

Whatever 'parapsychology' that is going on now is cranks, swindlers, and the occasional naïve student who delves into the 'piles of research' and then carefully moves over to real science.

I think that there are parallels to be drawn to, say, the Bigfoot cycle. It was not all that unreasonable, in the 1960s or even 1970s, to think that the Northwest deep woods might contain a large creature that was as yet undiscovered. But after a half-century of hoaxes, dubious samples, absence of evidence, and reduction of actual scientists in the field of study, it's now a "discipline" that lacks rigor or any hard facts. Occam's Razor has shaved bigfoot into a naked lie and two pranksters with a video camera.

The more we learn about brains and how they work, the more non-psi explanations for apparent "parapsychological phenomena" we have. The more once-promising psi experiments that are attempted to be replicated, the higher the failure rate. When better experiment controls result in fewer 'results', consistently, it means that the original results were a statistical anomaly or experimenter error.

I think the amount of respect or even attention Psi et al. deserves is much less than what was reasonable back in the 70's. Like phlogiston, psi was an hypothesis that was not outside the bounds of consideration when it was invented; but it has been tested and has failed.

Just my thoughts, MK

 

[Lusikka]

Gah?! When did they include a course in parapsychology (and hypnology) at the University of Lund (for those who didn't know, it is a famous swedish institute of science)?!?

I voted No. Probably there are very few people interested in parapsychology reading this forum. And really few people here which are not very ignorant of parapsychology.

There are parapsychological researchers present in many universities in the world, for example in Virginia:
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops

In Padova, Italy:
"Parapsychological research at the University of Padova began around 2000 with an informal team of researchers lead by Patrizio E. Tressoldi. Since the outset of this line of research, they have been convinced that parapsychology researches were nothing but one of the main topics of cognitive science. It is why their research projects are considered as part of cognitive psychology."
http://www.thewop.org/?p=1352

In Gothenburg, Sweden:
http://parapsykologi.se/artiklar/ganzfeld.html

 

[Aepervius]

I voted No. Probably there are very few people interested in parapsychology reading this forum. And really few people here which are not very ignorant of parapsychology.

There are parapsychological researchers present in many universities in the world, for example in Virginia:
http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops

In Padova, Italy:
"Parapsychological research at the University of Padova began around 2000 with an informal team of researchers lead by Patrizio E. Tressoldi. Since the outset of this line of research, they have been convinced that parapsychology researches were nothing but one of the main topics of cognitive science. It is why their research projects are considered as part of cognitive psychology."
http://www.thewop.org/?p=1352

In Gothenburg, Sweden:
http://parapsykologi.se/artiklar/ganzfeld.html

If you dig around you will find out quickly we are not so ignorant of parapsychology as you think. For example read the super-thread about ganzfeld, PEAR, precog, and other studies.

The plain fact ,a s somebody said, is that at the moment parapsychology has no predictive power (snark) whatsoever, and it could be held that at the moment it does not goes beyond looking at stochastic number list as someone pointed out. And for the few series where there is "something" seen above average, it is never isolated , properly studied, and used to predict anything, not even any theory to falsify.

Really at the moment parapsychology cannot be qualified as science. And if there are any course given, WHAT are they speaking inside , beside describing experiment ? Again there are no theory, no falsification, no predictive power. So what can they discuss really ?

 

[DoomMetal]

As has been stated the study of parapsychology itself is a science even if it does not produce any results. It is totally possible to use the scientific method in parapsychology and attempt to test for "paranormal forces" or test hypotheses relating to ESP etc.

As Dr. Chris French says:

Determining the scientific status of parapsychology does not require any consideration of whether or not paranormal forces actually exist.

Many hypothesis relating to ESP, PK, and even post mortem survival can be tested in the same way that hypothesis in other sciences are tested. But, after well over a century of systematic scientific research into these putative phenomena, reliable evidence that they actually exist still eludes us.

The problem has been, that the field of parapsychology has been swamped with pseudoscience and in recent years psychology has explained much (not all) of what was previously considered "paranormal" by the parapsychologists.

I think that parapsychology was once a science, but after many decades of genuine scientific research, the unavoidable conclusion was that there was, after all, nothing there.

I personally wouldn't go that far, there still may be something there but I am in agreement with the critics of parapsychology about the sloppy research in parapsychology in recent years and lack of scientific controls. I have not seen any real research in parapsychology done in the last 20 years. It is mostly the same debunked studies being regurgitated by the psi believers. No new breakthroughs in parapsychology at all. The burden of proof is on the psi believers to provide the evidence but every time they fall way short.

If you visit the mind-energy forum (the only parapsychology forum on the internet) none of the users have anything new to say, all they quote is the same stuff over and over and most of it can be explained by psychology without recourse to the paranormal.

 

[DoomMetal]

Here is what the parapsychologist Eric Dingwall wrote in an essay after investigating parapsychology for over sixty years:

After sixty years' experience and personal acquaintance with most of the leading parapsychologists of that period I do not think I could name half a dozen whom I could call objective students who honestly wished to discover the truth.

The above conclusion was from his essay The Need for Responsibility in Parapsychology: My Sixty Years in Psychical Research (1985) and was published in the book A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology (1985) by the CSICOP founder Paul Kurtz.