U of Virginia’s Perceptual Studies - Credible?

[Frznrth]

Hi
I’ve become very interested in the work at the U of V’s Division of Perceptual Studies. I’m reading a couple of books by their professors. One on children remembering past lives and the other trying to reconcile PSI phenomena with science. Ive also watched a couple of interviews with several researchers.

I’m fairly skeptical at heart and have never taken these topics seriously but....
These seem to be serious scientists, MDs, psychiatrists, psychologists etc. doing serious work in a real university.

I’m very curious if anyone has looked into their work. Are they credible?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Frznrth]

The books I’m reading are Beyond Physicalism by Edward Kelly and
Return to Life: Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives by im B. Tucker M.D.

 

[Reality Check]

A good guideline is that if science is not in a textbook or other scientific literature then it is very unlikely to be science. What you have is cited a couple of personal, rather inaccessible (we should have to buy their books!) opinions. From what I have seen, the U of V’s Division of Perceptual Studies is another paranormal research center similar to the Rhine Research Center, etc. and with the same flaws. For example, Confirmation bias - they start with a bias that paranormal activity exists and so tend to find paranormal activity!

 

[Pixel42]

These seem to be serious scientists

They may have scientific qualifications, but that does not necessarily mean they are using the scientific method in their research. Sadly many paranormal researchers do not - they seem to forget everything they were ever taught about cognitive biases and the importance of designing test protocols which compensate for them, for example.

Scientific research is published in reputable, peer reviewed journals. Books written to appeal to people who would like to believe in the paranormal, even when written by people with letters after their name, are not usually good sources of reliable information.

 

[Pixel42]

The books I’m reading are Beyond Physicalism by Edward Kelly and
Return to Life: Extraordinary Cases of Children Who Remember Past Lives by im B. Tucker M.D.

Tucker appears to be carrying on the work of his predecessor Ian Stevenson, whose work I've come across before. There's a good article about it here:

http://skepdic.com/stevenson.html

 

[Bikewer]

Any serious investigation into either “remembering” past lives or having them articulated while under hypnosis has shown that the person had the information available, even early in life.
Experiments conducted by CSICOP researchers during the heyday of “past life regression” hypnosis experiments showed that the enthusiasts merely accepted the subject’s recitation of the past life.
But, if the researcher pressed the subject further, asking for the source of the information, the subject would relate the book or movie they had read or seen.

Mary Roach, in her book, “Spook, Science Looks At The Afterlife”, interviews a Hindu researcher who truly “wants to believe”, as reincarnation is part of his culture and religion.
But alas, his scientific training has led him to reject every single case he’s investigated.

 

[Frznrth]

Thanks for the information and your thoughts. I don’t know enough about these researchers and the U of V - that’s why I asked - but I’m definitely going to find out more.

I don’t think they can so easily be dismissed.

With regards to past lives being explained by people seeing movies or being fed the information, I’m sure this happens, but the couple of cases I read so far do not seem so easy to explain.

Thanks again. I’ll let you know if I find anything interesting.

 

[Pixel42]

The important point you need to keep in mind when considering these sort of anecdotes is that just because you can't think of a mundane explanation, it doesn't mean there isn't one. It might just mean you don't have all the information necessary to work out what that explanation is. Usually, if you do manage to learn more, you end up kicking yourself because the explanation seems so obvious in retrospect.

It's a bit like stage magic - just because you can't work out how the trick was done, it doesn't mean that magic is real.

 

[Frznrth]

Very true. It’s impossible to accurately judge something from the surface. I do think though this will be an interesting swim.

 

[JayUtah]

I haven't read either of the books you cited, but at the request of one of our now-departed members (Jabba) I did look at their bibliography of papers. At least I think it's the same people. I read all the papers (several dozen), and I understand the books are based largely on the research those papers report. I have no clue where that post went, but it's somewhere here on the forum.

In short: no, they are not credible.

Here's my vague recollection of what I encountered. The papers show research riddled with methodological flaws and opportunities for poor data. For example, "confirmation" of a reincarnation claim is often simply asking the parent of the child in question. Much of their research was done in cultures where reincarnation is accepted and revered, and "proof" of reincarnation carries great social status. Little if anything was done to control for these sources of biases.

Most of their research was published in journals that publish only their research, or other places where Ian Stevenson has considerable influence.

Most telling -- when other researchers in related fields began to challenge DOPS methods and findings in professional conferences, etc., their response was to circle the wagons and say, in effect, "How dare you question us, we know what we're doing." That's a major red flag.

 

[JayUtah]

I was able to find the two posts from a previous thread in which I looked at some of DOPS' published research.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11854531#post11854531

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11853142#post11853142

 

[Frznrth]

Thanks for the reply.

FYI the book on reincarnation focuses on cases in America.

How do non credible people stay employed at a major university?
I’m sure every university has a few wackadoodles, but a whole Division? Surely tenure can only go so far.

 

[The Greater Fool]

Thanks for the reply.

FYI the book on reincarnation focuses on cases in America.

How do non credible people stay employed at a major university?

Tenure.

 

[Pixel42]

And funding by people with more money than sense.

 

[JayUtah]

FYI the book on reincarnation focuses on cases in America.

Good to know. I'm familiar with the group's prior work, but not their recent work or the specific books you mention. Hence take the warnings with a grain of salt. Their prior work has little if any scientific credibility for the reasons given, but I don't know whether they have improved lately.

How do non credible people stay employed at a major university?

Tenure, as has been mentioned, offers academic freedom irrespective of scientific merit. As long as they "publish," (which can include journals of questionable value) they get to stay. Or the attraction of significant amounts of grant money. You'd be surprised how many of these "divisions" and "centers" and "offices" are funded by large donations from wealthy people who share the ideologies of the researchers. If "center for research" brings in enough private money to sustain their operations and have enough left over for the university coffers, then often they get to stay.

 

[Reality Check]

Reading the Division of Perceptual Studies web page hints at how dubious they are.
A division started by one person (Dr. Ian Stevenson) is likely to share their biases and methodology (or lack of it ).
DOPS was established in 1967. That is 53 years with not enough evidence to convince the scientific community that their claims are correct.
6 faculty and 3 staff seems small.
A "It is our hope that other opened-minded scientists will join us" comment implies that other scientists are not open minded.
Interviews by the comedian John Cleese are more like an advertisement.

 

[theprestige]

Where did they get the funding to hire John Cleese?

 

[Reality Check]

Where did they get the funding to hire John Cleese?

John Cleese apparently has an interest in questions about consciousness and thus the group's work. The interviews seem to have come about when Cleese was sponsored by DOPS to appear at the Tom Tom Summit & Festival (a combination of city planning and a party). Paranormal studies: John Cleese moderates UVA panel

The money probably came from donations. See the web page and "Support Our Mission We very much appreciate your kind donations and support of our research endeavors." at the bottom.
ETA: DOPS was established because Chester Carlson left a million dollars to UVA on the condition it be used to fund paranormal investigations.

 

[Pixel42]

DOPS was established because Chester Carlson left a million dollars to UVA on the condition it be used to fund paranormal investigations.

Sounds like that other privately funded University paranormal research facility, the McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research. Stalwarts of this forum all know what happened there, of course:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Alpha

ETA: Wow, whoever last edited that wiki article really has it in for Randi. It wasn't anything like as scathing the last time I read it.

For me the episode is a salutary lesson of how easily even trained scientists can be fooled when they don't rigorously use the scientific method to eliminate the effect of their own biases.

 

[Robin]

Hi
I’ve become very interested in the work at the U of V’s Division of Perceptual Studies. I’m reading a couple of books by their professors. One on children remembering past lives and the other trying to reconcile PSI phenomena with science. Ive also watched a couple of interviews with several researchers.

I’m fairly skeptical at heart and have never taken these topics seriously but....
These seem to be serious scientists, MDs, psychiatrists, psychologists etc. doing serious work in a real university.

I’m very curious if anyone has looked into their work. Are they credible?

Thanks for your time.

Most of the PSI research has always been done by real academics in respectable universities. No-one could ever say that PSI research has been suppressed by the academic community. Princeton University dedicated a whole department to researching telekinesis for nearly 30 years and only closed it down because the person who ran it wanted to leave and do other things.

PSI research has been given every opportunity but never delivered any results.