s parapsychology a science? If so, why do the vast majority
of scientists ignore it? Do parapsychologists know what they're
looking for and why they're looking for it? If so, why is
research so fragmented? Is there a future for parapsychological
research? Here are a few thoughts:
s parapsychology a science? I think so. As an attempt
to understand exceptional human experience, it is as much a
science as mainstream psychology or sociology. As an attempt to
understand and characterize the unseen, it is as much a science
as astronomy and physics. What has differentiated
parapsychological research from mainstream scientific research
has been the quantity and quality of research and researchers.
In the case of scientific research, quantity results in
quality, and both have been largely absent in parapsychological
research in the 20th century. This has not been lost on
mainstream scientists.
hen parapsychology blossomed as a
scientific attempt to explain spiritualistic phenomena in the
late 19th century, the luminaries of science hastened to join
in. How many of today's scientific stars are in any way
involved in parapsychological research? And perhaps more
telling, how many would admit it if they were?
here is fault on both sides. Critics of parapsychology have
lumped parapsychologists, psychics, fortunetellers, alchemists,
and alternative healers into one big crock of new age.
Unfortunately, many belong in that crock and the few that don't
find themselves tainted. Research in frontier science often
draws persons capable of pathological science, the name given to
the "science of things that aren't so" by Irving Langmuir in his
1953 talk Pathological Science, Physics Today, October 1989, p.
36. Extrasensory perception (ESP) was one of the sciences
labeled as pathological by Langmuir, based on his interviews and
observations of Joseph Rhine's research.
as Langmuir right? Is
ESP research pathological? Certainly, there are a number of
specific cases of pathology, but they exist in mainstream
science as well. However, in the overall sense, time may have
already answered the question. One of Langmuir's six symptoms of
pathological science was that "the ratio of supporters to
critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually
to oblivion." That is certainly true of the classic cases of
N-rays, polywater, and cold fusion. But it is not true for ESP
research. According to a polls of the general public, the
percentage of adult Americans who believe in ESP is
approximately 50% and hasn't changed significantly in over a
decade. While this may be a massive case of magical thinking and
the need to believe (after all, it was a poll of the general
population, not scientists), it certainly indicates that
exceptional human experiences are widespread and still need to
be investigated.
arapsychology cannot police its members like the medical
profession. There are no board exams and no certification. The
best that parapsychologists can do is to carefully scrutinize
their research and that of their colleagues ... a role that the
Parapsychological Association attempts to play. But they should
also consider the words of Karlis Osis, who decried the
pandering of the parapsychology community to mainstream science.
Indicating that the primary thread running through
parapsychology for the last century has been the question of
postmortem survival of the personality, he described current
trends in parapsychology as the good boys who only investigate
anomalies. Instead, they should focus on the real issue
(postmortem survival) and stop dancing around the edges. (1995
Conference of the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research on
Personal Survival of Bodily Death)
very parapsychologist should examine their motivation in light of this statement.
For most mainstream scientists, the driving motivation is to earn a
living and perhaps to contribute in a small way to the growth of
scientific knowledge. For parapsychologists, as well as for
other scientists working in frontier areas where significant
results can overturn established scientific paradigms, the
rewards of success as well as the dangers of pathological
science are the greatest.
hat about the future of parapsychology? Can the critics be
silenced? Why do scientists ignore psi research? Many critics
of parapsychology, such as the Council for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), hold to such
dogmatic views that they may never be convinced. But no matter
what you think of CSICOP, they cannot be accused of hypocrisy.
The ties between CSICOP and the secular humanist movement are
strong, and the latter's rejection of postmortem survival or a
universal human consciousness or oneness is in perfect harmony
with rejection of parapsychology. On the other hand, many
scientists profess religious faiths and belief in postmortem
survival and still reject parapsychological research. Yet most
mainstream religious faiths accept psi phenomena and the
supernatural as genuine! Here lies the scientific hypocrisy, but
also the opportunity.
For many scientists, rejection of parapsychology is hypocritical and the result of peer pressure. It's politically correct to profess a religious faith that espouses the supernatural and postmortem survival, but not to support scientific research to investigate them. One of my scientific colleagues is a believer in the literal truth of the Bible and is also a great admirer of James Randi. That is much like being an abortionist and a supporter of the Pope. But in this hypocrisy lies the basis for support for parapsychological research ... if only scientists will examine their behavior and act accordingly.
