The Problem with Parapsychology

[JMA]

However, you are quite wrong to assume that all psychology is taught in that way.

I don't assume that at all because I did an Erasmus training period in Scotland, and I saw there by myself that the french-speaking (Belgium and France) way of doing things are quite different that the english way (UK and the US).

One of the many reasons is the importance of psychoanalysis (and especially Jacque Lacan) in France...

And know we have postmodernim thinking (espacially in sociology)... We are really doomed. You don't know the luck you have...

 

[RichardR]

From Ray Hyman:

Seemingly promising and potentially exciting effects using a novel experimental paradigm are reported, only to fizzle out upon closer scrutiny. Each round of replication failures engenders a brief period of disillusionment and disenchantment, which sets the stage for concerted attempts to find a new and improved paradigm.

Eventually, positive findings using yet another novel paradigm are reported, followed by another round of replication failures, and so on.

And that's the problem. Real science builds upon what has been learned before. Parapsychology ignores the failures of before and either repeats the mistakes or invents yet another new "paradigm".

 

[tkingdoll]

Wiseman has a PhD in parapsychology (he is not a mainstream psychologist) -though i agree he does some interesting work (though i find it psychologically speaking - theoretically thin at times). Nontheless a good guy and researcher doing good work.

Technically it's a Psychology PhD in parapsychology, akshewlly.

 

[Dr B]

Technically it's a Psychology PhD in parapsychology, akshewlly.

Semantics? It's a PhD in Parapsychology as far as I am aware (even Wiseman has called it that in the past i think - though he may have changed that now ). That does not mean it uses parapsychological interpretations. However, it does not make it Psychology either - because most PhDs in this area (and this is a sweeping statement but one not without some evidence, and is not directed at any one person) are limited to only considering parapsychological interpretations and a null hypothesis or perhaps one psychological alternative. In the mainstream you have to consider a wider scope of possibilities because many more have been proposed and evidenced to some degree.

As doing a PhD is more than just producing a theory I doubt I would agree with your repackaging of what is in reality a Parapsychology PhD.

On a side issue - I saw two Parapsychology PhDs the other week and read through them - there was hardly any psychology in them at all and no real resulting theory. They both read like exercises in statistics and the dedabtes in both were really ones of statistics, baselines, and sensory leakage. All important stuff to a some level, but in the mainstream things are different. This is perhaps one reason why a PhD in parapsychology cannot be repackaged in that way. Just my views of course

 

[Ersby]

On a side issue - I saw two Parapsychology PhDs the other week and read through them - there was hardly any psychology in them at all and no real resulting theory.

That sounds interesting. Where you acting as a reviewer? If so, I guess you can't give too many details, but were there any particularly good results? What protocol did they use?

 

[Dr B]

That sounds interesting. Where you acting as a reviewer? If so, I guess you can't give too many details, but were there any particularly good results? What protocol did they use?

I cannot comment too much on this. They were well written, nice, & clear. However, only one reported a significant effect (thats one effect from the entire PhD) and they failed to replicate that later in the PhD. The other failed to find any effects and was one long attempt to intepret null effects boggled: ). I sympathise with the researcher in question - it was not their fault.

However, what struck me was the lack of psychology and theory in both. They tended to read like a 'research methods' textbook. I think some parapsychologists think they only need to concentrate on methodology. Of course it is absolutely crucial, but some ideas, reasoning, and theory go a long way as well. Thats the only point I wanted to make on that

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Semantics? It's a PhD in Parapsychology as far as I am aware (even Wiseman has called it that in the past i think - though he may have changed that now ).

His bio says "He then obtained a first class honours degree in Psychology from University College London and a doctorate in psychology from the University of Edinburgh." The Wiki article concurs. We need to see his diplomas, I guess.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr B]

His bio says "He then obtained a first class honours degree in Psychology from University College London and a doctorate in psychology from the University of Edinburgh." The Wiki article concurs. We need to see his diplomas, I guess.

~~ Paul

His bio written by him? Only Kidding.....Wiseman studied, unless I am mistaken, at the Koestler chair, which is the main Parapsychology department in the country. It is part of, though separate from the main psychology department. I think the topic was also parapsychology (PSI).

However, this is getting somewhat off-tangent from the OP. I wanted to see what people thought about the way parapsychologists are trained, whether this explains many controversies and poor studies, and how we could improve it for the future. Obviously there are very good parapsychologists out there - and Richard is definately one of them - without doubt. But exceptions do not prove rules - and I know richard, like myself, has received some hostile interactions from parapsychologists who see us as 'nasty skeptics who need to open their minds'

On the whole we have had some good scientists in this country researching this area, Richard, Chris French, Sue Blackmore (now retired). But, as stated above, these people are exceptions to the rule. If you read any of the major parapsychology journals - it is easy to see skeptical interpretations and indeed good psychological ones, are like hens teeth....rare if any...

 

[Greatest I am]

Parapsycologist are good.Its thier subjects.

We all know that strange things happen now and then to some of us.
The problem arrises when we try to duplicate these things in a controled setting. All that is required is one person in the world who can replicate his skill at will.

The fact that after all this time of searching and we still do not have a candidate to win the prize, indicates strongly that the ability to replicate these skills does not exist.

Even those who have demonstrated on occasion that they can do these strange feats are lothe to do it consistently.

If Randy would accept lie detector evidence, Ibelieve he would have had already issued the prize because these things do hapen, just not on demand.
Same with re rest of us, if we saw proofvia a lie detector.

This would at least make us look more closely at claims made and message given.

This would certainly make the delivering of message easier on people like me who have had actual telepathic experiences and who so want to be believed.
Life should be so easy.

Basically any psychic who can reproduce on call will make a hero out of whichever investigator he chose to work with.
Lets hope it's Randy.

Regards
DL

 

[The_Fire]

We all know that strange things happen now and then to some of us.
The problem arrises when we try to duplicate these things in a controled setting. All that is required is one person in the world who can replicate his skill at will.

On multiple occasions. Just replicating it once wont prove it's more than a coincidence.

The fact that after all this time of searching and we still do not have a candidate to win the prize, indicates strongly that the ability to replicate these skills does not exist.

More than strongly. Fact is that NOONE have been able to present ANY kind of evidence that there is something paranormal happening.

Even those who have demonstrated on occasion that they can do these strange feats are lothe to do it consistently.

Probably because they are...how do I say this politely?......FRAUDS?.
There have, to this day, not been one incidence of socalled paranormal activity which have not turned out to be:
1: Fraud
2: Deception
3: Natural event
4: Magicians trick
5: A hysteric minds misconception of the above
6: A believing minds grasp at evidence where none exists
ETA:
7: Mental illness

If Randy would accept lie detector evidence, Ibelieve he would have had already issued the prize because these things do hapen, just not on demand.
Same with re rest of us, if we saw proofvia a lie detector.

No. I would not believe a lie detector. Lie detectors can be misled/cheated which is why the court doesn't allow them as evidence.
A lie detector measure the physical reaction to questions such as pulse rates, breathing and muscle activity. These reaction can be controlled through rehearsal, meditation or simply believing in something the moment you say it. It does not mean that something actually happened.

This would at least make us look more closely at claims made and message given.

So far I've seen no messages. Only....well here I go again....FRAUD or selfdeception.

This would certainly make the delivering of message easier on people like me who have had actual telepathic experiences and who so want to be believed.
Life should be so easy.

You may believe you have had a telepathic experience, and with God of all beings, but in reality you were probably talking to yourself.
Tell me, what did God say to you?

Basically any psychic who can reproduce on call will make a hero out of whichever investigator he chose to work with.
Lets hope it's Randy.
Regards
DL

And thats why the million dollar challenge exists. To find out if the paranormal exists. So far, there's been nothing but disappointment.

 

[Greatest I am]

Thanks for the note.
Telepathy is a reality. It's possible that only those who have experienced it will ever believe it. I hope this does not also apply to God.
Regards
DL

 

[Dr B]

We all know that strange things happen now and then to some of us.
The problem arrises when we try to duplicate these things in a controled setting. All that is required is one person in the world who can replicate his skill at will.

But the real quesiton is why its so difficult to duplicate - when all these self-claimed psychics seem to be able to do it at will on TV? I would have thought that being in front of a studio and national audience was far more off putting than being in a private quiet lab with some scientists. On that basis your logic does not stand up.

The fact that after all this time of searching and we still do not have a candidate to win the prize, indicates strongly that the ability to replicate these skills does not exist.

So are all the psychics on TV lying then? I would suggest they are but for different reason.

Even those who have demonstrated on occasion that they can do these strange feats are lothe to do it consistently.

No - they cant do it consistently - it has nothing to do with choice as I can see.

If Randy would accept lie detector evidence, Ibelieve he would have had already issued the prize because these things do hapen, just not on demand.
Same with re rest of us, if we saw proofvia a lie detector. This would at least make us look more closely at claims made and message given.

This is a serious error related to the confidence you place in lie detection. Most politicians can pass a lie detector when blatantly lying. Lie detection is not a science. Both the polygrapgh and neuro-based systems are riddled with assumptions and error. They might be useful only under certain circumstances.

 

[Dr B]

note to moderator - please remove this post (was a duplicate)

 

[Humphreys]

We all know that strange things happen now and then to some of us.
The problem arrises when we try to duplicate these things in a controled setting. All that is required is one person in the world who can replicate his skill at will.

Can you give an example of the kind of strange things you are talking about?

Are these things completely impossible things based on our current knowledge, or just highly unlikely events and coincidences?

In the first case, how do you rule out hallucination, and in the second case, how do you rule out chance? Have you worked out that these strange occurrences that are probabilistically very unlikely occur more often than chance would suggest? If so, how?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The problem with parapsychology is that the experiments are about the protocol and statistical analysis, not about any theory of psi. This makes the results completely dependent on the goodness of the protocol and accuracy of the analysis.

An example is Wiseman and Schlitz's staring experiments. Using the same protocol and analysis, they got opposite results. This contributed to the whole concept of the experimenter effect; it was almost the poster boy for the experimenter effect. Then in a third attempt at replication, they got the same results: nothing. Why? Is there anything in the "Theory of Psi" that can explain this? No. So we just scratch our heads and wonder if it's worth spending the money for a fourth study.

~~ Paul

 

[Spektator]

Ooh! Ooh! I have actual anecdotal evidence that lie detectors are unreliable!

I once worked for an employer who wanted all his employees to take polygraph tests to insure that we would not betray his trade secrets to any of his competitors (he was a touch paranoid). At who knows what expense, he brought in a professional polygraph operator who had done work for law-enforcement agencies, etc., to test us. Naturally, the employees who got tested first talked about the experience. One of them mentioned that before the test started, the polygraph operator showed how valid it was with a card trick.

So my turn came, I got strapped in, and the operator told me the machine was so sensitive that it could detect my intention to tell a lie even before I spoke. To demonstrate, he brought out a deck of cards and told me to cut it anywhere I wanted and look at the card. I did, and cut to a nine of diamonds.

Except my co-worker had mentioned that he had cut to the nine of diamonds.

The operator then said "Now memorize the card and put the deck back together. Don't let me see anything."

I did. The operator then said, "Don't say a word, just think. Is your card black? Is it red? It's red. Is it a face card? It isn't a face card. Is it below five? No. Is it a six? A seven? An eight? A nine? Is it a heart? No, your card was the nine of diamonds."

"Fantastic, Ace," I said, revealing the six or eight cards I had palmed. "In fact, they were all nines of diamonds. I'm out of here." And I unhooked myself and started out.

"Aren't you worried about my report to the boss?" he asked.

"Aren't you worried I'll tell him he hired a fraud?" I asked.

I got a good report.

 

[wolfgirl]

This would certainly make the delivering of message easier on people like me who have had actual telepathic experiences and who so want to be believed.

I don't think you're lying. I think you genuinely believe that you have had supernatural experiences.

The problem is that there is no evidence that these types of experience have ever existed, short of anecdotal evidence such as your own. And if you've studied human psychology, you will know that everything that people have given as evidence of paranormal activity can be explained through psychology.

The mind is an incredibly complex mechanism. Our subconscious fills in blanks and provides explanations for things for us when the explanation doesn't seem obvious to our rational mind. We have all had experiences that seemed odd or inexplicable, but none of these experiences fit the bill of truly inexplicable once you take psychology into account. (Not to mention coincidence.)

If you thought you had a paranormal experience, I would bet my life that it has a perfectly rational explanation that you are simply unable or unwilling (consciously or unconsciously) to accept.

You are welcome here on this forum. You simply must understand that we require evidence for extraordinary claims, beyond simply saying, "I had this weird experience, and I can't explain it, so to me it proves such-and-such supernatural thing." Because to us it proves nothing other than that you are human and fallible. And less willing to skepically examine your experience than we are.

 

[median]

Another problem with parapsychology is that the experiments are about the methodology and statistical results, not about any theory of psi. This means that the experiments are at the utter mercy of the correctness and consistency of the methodology and analysis. This is a bad state of affairs.

I'd rather think that the problem exists at the hypothesis level. That is why there is no cogent theory of psi (aside from QM ) as yet. People tend to let pre-existing ideas guide their thinking whilst actually being unable to test them realistically.