Transcript Status_of_Parapsychology_French

Lecture 3:
Current Status of Parapsychology

Modern Parapsychology
– Psychics




Psychic superstars
Psychic readings
Psychic prediction
Psychic detectives
– Ganzfeld studies
– Remote viewing
– Psychokinesis

Parapsychology: Science or Pseudoscience?
–
–
–
–
Pseudoscience reconsidered
Problems with defining pseudoscience
The status of parapsychology
Conclusion
Psychic Superstars:
Uri Geller
Psychic Superstars

5 Ways to Bend a Spoon:





1. Distract everyone, bend the object manually, conceal
the bend, and later reveal it gradually.
2. Pre-stress the object so that later it will appear to melt
and snap.
3. Amongst a large collection of objects, some will be
bent already.
4. Substitute already bent objects.
5. Hold the object in such a way than an existing bend is
not apparent, but gradually turn the object to reveal the
bend.
Geller’s Repertoire
Spoon bending
 Watch mending
 Thought sending (and reading)
 Targ & Puthoff (1974)

Other Psychic Superstars
J Z Knight, channels “Ramtha”
 US media mediums: John Edward,
James van Praagh, and Sylvia Browne
 UK media mediums: Derek Acorah,
Colin Fry, and Gordon Smith.

Cold Reading
A technique used to convince complete
strangers that you know all about them
 One aspect is the Barnum Effect: the
tendency for people to accept vague,
ambiguous, and general statements as
descriptive of their unique personalities

Ray Hyman’s
“Rules of the Game”
1. Show confidence.
 2. Make creative use of the latest polls,
surveys and statistics.
 3. Set the stage for your reading.
 4. Gain the client’s cooperation.
 5. Use a gimmick such as a crystal ball,
Tarot cards, palmistry, etc.
 6. Have a list of stock phrases.

Ray Hyman’s
“Rules of the Game” (cont.)







7. Keep your eyes open.
8. Use the technique of “fishing”.
9. Learn to be a good listener.
10. Dramatize your reading.
11. Always give the impression that you know
more than you are saying.
12. Flatter your client at every opportunity.
13. Tell the client what the client wants to
hear
“Sleight of Tongue”






Turn a statement/question about the present
or past into one about the future.
Broaden the area to which you were
referring.
Tell the client to go and check.
Insist that you know the client better than
they know themselves.
Reinterpret what you said to make it seem
right.
Reinterpret the facts.
Schouten (1994)
The main question asked in most of these studies was
whether a significant number of correct statements
deviated significantly from chance expectation.
Another question, less often addressed, was whether
psi ability was necessary to explain the correct
statements. The present study indicates that the
number of studies with significant positive results is
rather small. Moreover, in most of these, one or more
potential sources of error were present that might
have influenced the outcome.
Schouten (1994)
It seems, therefore, that there is little reason
to expect psychics to make correct
statements about matters unknown at the
time more often than would be expected by
chance. An explanation is offered for the
apparent successes of psychics in everydaylife consultations that takes into consideration
the role of the client or sitter, which is
generally underestimated. Extremely put, it is
proposed that it is the client who makes the
psychic.
Schwartz et al. (2001)
Claimed to have proved that mediums
could speak to the dead
 Wiseman & O’Keeffe’s criticisms:

– Potential for judging bias
– Inappropriate control group
– Possibility of sensory leakage
Psychic Prediction



Nostradamus, 1503-1566
Still the subject of best-selling books and
documentaries
Said to have predicted “the rise of Napoleon,
the rise and fall of Hitler, World Wars I and II,
... the deaths of John F. and Robert Kennedy,
to name a few. He is even said to have
named Hitler, getting his name correct to
within a single letter.” (Hines, 1988, p. 40).
Randi’s (1990) Rules of the
Prophesy Game




Make lots of predictions, and hope that some come
true. If they do, point to them with pride. Ignore the
others.
Be very vague and ambiguous. Definite statements
can be wrong, but “possible” items can always be
reinterpreted.
Use a lot of symbolism. Be metaphorical, using
images of animals, names, initials. They can be fitted
to many situations by the believers.
Cover the situation both ways and select the winner
as the “real” intent of your statement.
Randi’s (1990) Rules of the
Prophesy Game (cont.)




Credit God with your success, and blame yourself for
any incorrect interpretations of His divine messages.
No matter how often you’re wrong, plough ahead.
The Believers won’t notice your mistakes, and will
continue to follow your every word.
Predict catastrophes; they are far more easily
remembered and more popular by far.
When predicting after the fact, but representing that
the prophesy preceded the event, be wrong just
enough to appear uncertain about the exact details;
too good a prophecy is suspect.
Psychic Detectives

Piet Hein Hoebens (1985, p. 634):

The standard skeptical explanation for the alleged
successes of psychic detectives is that these sensitives
offer their consultants the verbal equivalent of a
Rorschach test. Their statements are typically vague,
rambling, and verbose. The accuracy of the "readings" is
evaluated post factum: "Good" sitters retroactively
interpret their ambiguous and often contradictory
statements in such a way that they fit the true facts and
obligingly forget the many details that were too wide of
the mark. Complete failures are ignored or suppressed.
The possibility that some of the paranormal information
could have been acquired by normal means is quietly
discounted. Occasional lucky guesses (consistent with
the chance hypothesis) are enhanced by selective
reporting and editorial embellishment.
Gerard Croiset
Nella Jones:
"inside the mind of the Yorkshire
Ripper"

Psychic News (5th June 1982):
 Eighteen months before the police arrested Peter
Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, Kent medium Nella Jones
drew a picture of him, described where he lived and
worked and accurately predicted two more murders
before he was caught … Eventually Nella went to
Yorkshire and accompanied police to help them locate
clues and places. Her mental pictures were always
accurate. Nella could exactly describe details of a
location before they ever arrived on the spot. Police were
amazed that the psychic could direct them to places she
had never seen.
Ganzfeld Study: Receiver
Ganzfeld Study: Sender
The Ganzfeld Studies

Ray Hyman (1985) criticised:



1. the means used to calculate replication rates
2. the use of multiple criteria for scoring hits
3. procedural flaws, such as inappropriate
randomisation, statistical errors, the inclusion
of the actual target picture in the set to be
judged rather than a duplicate, and insufficient
details of procedure.
Hyman's (1985) Conclusion:

The ganzfeld psi data base, despite initial
impressions, in inadequate either to support
the contention of a repeatable study or to
demonstrate the reality of psi. … Indeed,
parapsychologists may be doing themselves
and their cause a disservice by attempting to
use these studies as examples of the current
state of their field.
Hyman and Honorton (1986, p.351):

We agree that there is an overall significant effect in
this data base that cannot reasonably be explained
by selective reporting or multiple analysis. We
continue to differ over the degree to which the effect
constitutes evidence for psi, but we agree that the
final verdict awaits the outcome of future
experiments conducted by a broader range of
investigators and according to more stringent
standards.
Standards Spelled out in the Report:
Bem and Honorton (1994, p.9)

strict security precautions against sensory
leakage, testing and documentation of
randomization methods for selecting targets
and sequencing the judging pool, statistical
correction for multiple analyses, advance
specification of the status of the experiment
(e.g., pilot study or confirmatory experiment),
and full documentation in the published report
of the experimental procedures and the status
of statistical tests (e.g., planned or post hoc).
Milton and Wiseman (1999)


Meta-analysis of 30 ganzfeld ESP studies from
7 independent laboratories.
The studies failed to confirm Bem and
Honorton's (1994) main effect of participants
scoring above chance on the ESP task.
Remote Viewing
Receiver based in laboratory with
experimenter
 Sender(s) at randomly selected remote
locations attempt to telepathically
transmit impressions from site
 Receiver’s impressions transcribed for
later rating
 Clairvoyance can be tested (no senders)

Targ and Puthoff (1974)

Significant results based on two flaws:
– Judges given list of targets in same order
as used in experiment
– Cues relating to position of response in
sequence left in transcripts
Hansen et al. (1992)


The research departs from criteria usually expected in
formal scientific experimentation. Problems occur with
regard to randomisation, statistical baselines, application
of statistical models, agent coding of descriptor lists,
feedback to percipients, sensory cues, and precautions
against cheating. ... It is concluded that the quoted
significance values are meaningless because of defects in
the experimental and statistical procedures. (p. 97)
Undoubtedly some of the poorest quality ESP
experiments published in many years. (p. 107)
Utts (1996, p.3):

Using the standards applied to any other area of science,
it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well
established. The statistical results of the studies
examined are far beyond what is expected by chance.
Arguments that these results could be due to
methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly
refuted. Effects of a magnitude similar to those found in
government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have
been replicated at a number of laboratories around the
world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by
claims of flaws or fraud.
Hyman (1996, p. 39)

I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes
reported in the SAIC experiments and in the
recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be
dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they
appear to be accounted for by multiple
testing, file-drawer distortions, inappropriate
statistical testing or other misuse of statistical
inference. Having accepted the existence of
non-chance effects, the focus now is upon
whether these effects have normal causes.
Hyman (1996, p. 43)

I admit that the latest findings should make
[parapsychologists] optimistic. The case for
psychic functioning seems better than it ever
has been. The contemporary findings along
with the output of the SRI/SAIC program do
seem to indicate that something beyond odd
statistical hiccups is taking place. I also have
to admit that I do not have a ready
explanation for these observed effects.
Inexplicable statistical departures from
chance, however, are a far cry from
compelling evidence for anomalous cognition.
Wiseman and Milton (1999)
Discovered a number of potential
pathways for information leakage in
SAIC Experiment 1
 SAIC team produced no less than five
different versions of protocols used!

Wiseman & Milton (1999, p. 3)

These difficulties not only make an
assessment of Experiment One extremely
difficult, but also call into question whether
the assessors commissioned to write a USgovernment sponsored report on the other
studies in the SAIC program [i.e., Utts and
Hyman] would have been given accurate
information about their unrecorded details.
Psychokinesis

Macro-PK refers to alleged
psychokinetic phenomena which are on
such a large scale that they are
immediately observable
Macro-PK?
Psychokinetic Metal Bending?
No, Girard is a Fraud
Psychokinesis
Macro-PK refers to alleged
psychokinetic phenomena which are on
such a large scale that they are
immediately observable
 Micro-PK refers to much weaker effects
which would usually only be
demonstrable by statistical analysis of
the results of an experiment

Rhine’s Dice PK Apparatus
Poltergeist: Noisy Ghost?
… or Recurrent Spontaneous
Psychokinesis (RSPK)?
… or nothing paranormal at
all?
Sincere misinterpretation of natural
phenomena
 Hoaxes

– Amityville Horror
– Tina Resch in Columbus, Ohio
Rhine’s Dice PK Apparatus
REG Studies
Helmut Schmidt
 Robert Jahn, Princeton Engineering
Anomalies Research Group
 Very tiny but highly statistically
significant effects

Schmidt’s REG Studies
Stages in Schmidt’s Work




Original studies directed at precognition – but
could not be distinguished from PK
Then studied PK directly
Went on to test “quantum mechanical model”
of psi using REGs …
… then using pseudo-random sequences
seeded by single number from REG
Alcock’s (1990) Critique






research programme is unusually disjointed
failure
to
consistently
apply
proper
randomisation checks to target series
inadequate controls
general tendency to work alone and to not
make raw data available to others
ad hoc hypotheses and experimental goals
lack of methodological rigour
Jahn and PEAR Group
Essentially replicated Schmidt’s findings
using REGs
 Also using mechanical cascade device
 Effects found regardless of time and
space constraints

Concerns Regarding Jahn’s
Results


Single participant, a member of PEAR team,
provided large proportion of data
Not as much variability in baseline data as
chance would predict
– Jahn himself has remarked that what makes the
situation even odder is that when the baseline
statistics and the high and low scores are all
added together, the result is a well-behaved
Gaussian distribution. It is almost as if the extra
hits found in the high and low scores have been
taken from what would otherwise have been
outliers of the baseline condition.
Hyman (1989)

... the only reasonable conclusion to draw
from the existing body of data from the
[REG] experiments is that we do not know
what to make of it. We cannot say that the
results were definitely the result of some
artifact. On the other hand we cannot say
that they were not. The only way that we will
be able to draw meaningful conclusions from
such experiments is when they have been
conducted according to the standards that
both the parapsychologists and their critics
assert ought to be met by any acceptable
parapsychological experiment.
Bosch, Steinkamp & Boller (2006)
Meta-analysis of 380 PK studies
employing REGs
 Small but significant overall effect size
 But effect sizes “strongly and inversely
related to sample size” and “extremely
heterogeneous”
 A result of publication bias?

Comments on Bosch et al. (2006)



Wilson & Shadish (2006) do not accept that
any significant effect, however small, is
“fundamentally important”
Suggest that parapsychologists should
concentrate on producing larger PK effects or
on specifying the conditions under which they
would accept the null hypothesis
Radin et al. (2006) question the publication
bias explanation, believing the evidence
supports the existence of genuine PK
Pseudoscience Reconsidered



Defining science and the demarcation
problem: Can we differentiate science from
non-science?
Defining pseudoscience: Do strict criteria
exist to allow us to differentiate between
science and pseudoscience?
Assessing the current status of
parapsychology: Is it a science or a
pseudoscience?
Defining Pseudoscience



“Claims and methods that are falsely
presented as science”
But what is science?
Edge, Morris, Palmer, & Rush (1986):
“although there is no easy definition and
although there are no hard and fast criteria
by which we can easily judge whether a
discipline is scientific, there do seem to be
benchmarks of good science”
Absolute Criteria?


Radner & Radner (1982): if a discipline
displayed evidence of even one “mark of
pseudoscience,” that was enough to condemn
that discipline as being pseudoscientific
Lilienfeld, Lynn, & Lohr (2003): “science
probably differs from pseudoscience in
degree rather than in kind. Science and
pseudoscience can be thought of as Roschian
or open concepts, which possess intrinsically
fuzzy boundaries and an indefinitely
extendable list of indicators.”
Radners’ “Marks of
Pseudoscience”
“found only in crackpot work and never in
genuine scientific work”, e.g.,






Irrefutable hypotheses
The grab-bag approach to evidence
Looking for mysteries
Appeal to myths
Argument from spurious similarity
Refusal to revise in the light of evidence
Alcock’s (1981) Summary of
Bunge’s (1980) Criteria:
its theory of knowledge is subjectivistic,
containing aspects accessible only to
the initiated;
 its formal background is modest, with
only rare involvement of mathematics
or logic;
 its fund of knowledge contains
untestable or even false hypotheses
which are in conflict with a larger body
of knowledge;

Alcock’s (1981) Summary of
Bunge’s (1980) Criteria (cont.):
its methods are neither checkable by
alternative methods nor justifiable in
terms of well-confirmed theories;
 it borrows nothing from neighbouring
fields, there is no overlap with another
field of research;

Alcock’s (1981) Summary of
Bunge’s (1980) Criteria (cont.):



it has no specific background of relatively
confirmed theories;
it has an unchanging body of belief, whereas
scientific enquiry teems with novelty;
it has a world-view admitting elusive
immaterial entities, such as disembodied
minds, whereas science countenances only
changing concrete things.
Lilienfeld’s (2005) Features of
Pseudoscience





A tendency to invoke ad hoc hypotheses, which can
be thought of as “escape hatches” or loopholes, as a
means of immunising claims from falsification;
An absence of self-correction and an accompanying
intellectual stagnation;
An emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation;
A tendency to place the burden of proof on sceptics,
not proponents, of claims;
Excessive reliance on anecdotal and testimonial
evidence to substantiate claims;
Lilienfeld’s (2005) Features of
Pseudoscience (cont.)




Evasion of the scrutiny afforded by peer
review;
Absence of “connectivity”, that is, a failure to
build on existing scientific knowledge;
Use of impressive-sounding jargon whose
primary purpose is to lend claims a façade of
scientific respectability;
An absence of boundary conditions, that is, a
failure to specify the settings under which
claims do not hold.
Problems with Defining
Pseudoscience
Common themes but much variation
 Influenced by cultural background and
potential target for labelling?
 Problems with falsification as defining
feature of science

– At best, prescriptive not descriptive
– Hypothesis should not be abandoned
following first apparent falsification
Problems with Defining
Pseudoscience (cont.)

But falsification still useful indicator if
either
– Hypothesis non-falsifiable in principle; or
– Over-reliance on ad hoc excuses to avoid
falsification

McNally (2003): “Pseudoscience is like
pornography: we cannot define it, but
we know it when we see it.”
Should the Pseudoscience
Concept be Abandoned?

McNally (2003): “When therapeutic
entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of
their interventions, we should not waste
our time trying to determine whether
their interventions qualify as
pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask
them: How do you know that your
intervention works? What is your
evidence?”
Should the Pseudoscience
Concept be Abandoned? (cont.)

Truzzi (1996): “there are good reasons
to purge the term pseudoscience from
our disputes. It may simply prove more
useful and less incendiary to speak of
bad, poor, or even stupid theories
without entanglement in the
demarcation problem.”
Lilienfeld et al. (2003)

“the fuzziness of such categories does
not mean that distinctions between
science and pseudoscience are fictional
or entirely arbitrary. As psychophysicist
S. S. Stevens observed, the fact that
the precise boundary between day and
night is indistinct does not imply that
day and night cannot be meaningfully
differentiated.”
Lilienfeld et al. (2003; cont.)

“From this perspective, pseudosciences
can be conceptualized as possessing a
fallible, but nevertheless useful, list of
indicators or ‘warning signs.’ The more
such warning signs a discipline exhibits,
the more it begins to cross the murky
dividing line separating science from
pseudoscience.”
Parapsychology



Often defined as the scientific study of claims
of extrasensory perception (ESP),
psychokinesis (PK), and life-after-death
As exemplified by research published in the
Journal of Parapsychology
Parapsychological Association became an
affiliated organisation of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science in
1969
Mousseau’s (2003) Analysis

Compared contents of mainstream
scientific journals, e.g.,
– Molecular and Optical Physics
– British Journal of Psychology

with “fringe” journals, e.g.,
– Journal of Parapsychology
– Journal of Scientific Exploration
Is Parapsychology a
Pseudoscience?

Issues relating to falsifiability (e.g., Alcock,
1981):
– Experimenter effects
– Sheep-goat effects

Emphasis on confirmation rather than
refutation: Mousseau (2003, p. 274) reported
that in her sample “almost half of the fringe
articles report a negative outcome
(disconfirmation). By contrast, no report of a
negative result has been found in my sample
of mainstream journals.”
Is Parapsychology a
Pseudoscience? (cont.)

Formal background modest, little
mathematics or logic: Mousseau (2003)
reported that, “All of the articles that aim to
gather new empirical evidence, whether in
fringe journals or in mainstream journals,
use statistical analysis.”

Failure to propose new hypotheses and
theories: Mousseau (2003) found that 17%
of fringe articles deal with theory and
propose new hypotheses.
Is Parapsychology a
Pseudoscience? (cont.)

Over-reliance on testimonials and
anecdotal evidence: There probably is
more reliance on anecdotal evidence
within parapsychology than within most
other sciences. But, as Mousseau
(2003) reports, “43% of articles in the
fringe journals deal with empirical
matters and almost one-fourth report
laboratory experiments.”
Is Parapsychology a
Pseudoscience? (cont.)

Absence of self-correction: Mousseau (2003): “…

Lack of overlap with other fields of research:
29% of the fringe-journal articles […] discuss
progress of research, problems encountered,
epistemological issues. This kind of article is
completely absent from the mainstream sample.”
According to Mousseau (2003), in fringe-journals,
36% of citations were of articles in mainstream
science journals (e.g., psychology, physics,
neuroscience). In her sample of mainstream
science journals, however, 90% of citations were
to articles in the same field (99% in the case of
physics).
Is Parapsychology a
Pseudoscience? (cont.)

Use of impressive sounding jargon: Many
proponents of the paranormal often use
scientific-sounding terminology such as
“vibrations”, “energy”, “fields”,
“harmonization”, and so on, in ways that bear
little resemblance to the precisely defined
meanings that such terms have when used by
scientists. However, such imprecise usage is,
by and large, not a feature of articles
published in peer-reviewed journals within
the field.
Is Parapsychology a
Pseudoscience? (cont.)

Examples of (arguably) failed criteria:
– it has no specific background of relatively
confirmed theories
– it has a world-view admitting elusive
immaterial entities, such as disembodied
minds
Conclusion

Parapsychology can still be judged to be
a science even if, as seems quite
possible, paranormal forces do not exist
Acknowledgement
With thanks to Hilary Evans, proprietor of
the Mary Evans Picture Library, for
permission to use illustrations featured
in this presentation. These illustrations
must not be reproduced in any form
without permission from the Mary Evans
Picture Library.