Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
Thus
,
parapsychologists claim that the
issue
is not the validity of psi
research, but the integrity of the scientific process
as
it deals with
controversial findings.
They believe that the scientific gate-keepers should be
willing to trust the normal scientific process
to arrive at scientific
truth,
and not rely on reviewers who are not scientifically qualified in the discipline
being reviewed.
They note that the idea of disqualifying an entire discipline
from reviewing work in
its field
is unprecedented in modern science.
CHOICES FOR THE FUTURE
Regardless of the reasons,
it
is clear that parapsychology continues
to
face strong resistance from the scientific establishment.
The question
is,
How
can the field improve
its chances of obtaining a fairer hearing across a broader
spectrtim of the scientific community,
so that emotionality does not impede
objective assessment of experimental results?
Whether
the final result of such
an assessment
is positive,
negative,
or something in between,
the field appears
to merit such consideration.
From the standpoint of the experiments themselves,
some of the answers
to
that question have already been outlined in Section IV
(i.e.,
replicability,
better controls,
more process -oriented research,
etc.). On a higher level,
the
need for an acceptable theory of psi
(one accepted by a large number of
parapsychologists) has been emphasized repeatedly.
It would probably improve
the outlook for the field if such a theory were more hospitable
to current
models of mechanisms
in physics and psychology than the
idea that the mind can
operate outside
the realm of known physical
laws
--
although,
indeed,
some
aspects of psi suggest recent advances
in quantum theory such as nonlocality.
On an individual
level,
it was suggested that researchers
in parapsychology
must begin to make certain basic choices.
Workshop participants referred
several times
to the fact that parapsychologists began in the 19th century by
investigating something experiential and "real"
--
instances of paranormal
phenomena.
Gradually,
they adapted their experimental approaches
to the
methodologies of conventional science.
But
in doing
so,
and in attempting to
demonstrate the phenomena scientifically and statistically,
they have lost touch
with the powerful experiential base that gave the field its
impetus.
By
"looking under the lamppost" using a rigorous scientific methodology,
it was
suggested,
parapsychologists may be ignoring more promising avenues of
investigation.
Thus,
each experimenter must decide whether
to pursue research
designed primarily to satisfy the critics of the
field,
or
to follow his or her
instincts
as
to where the most fruitful and powerful findings might be made.
It
was suggested that one way parapsychology might be released from the constrained
situation in which it currently operates would be
to demonstrate practical
applications of psi.
(Some studies
in this direction have already been
attempted. 35)
This would required working toward a better understanding of the
conditions and characteristics under which different kinds of psi operate,
finding or cultivating individuals with unusually strong capabilities,
and
mounting controlled demonstrations of the uses
of ESP and PK.
If such a
strategy were
to be successful,
public opinion and the
interest of potential
users
--
rather than the strictures of the scientific establishment
-- would
begin driving progress
in the
field.
See,
for example,
the discussion of "Potential Applications"
in Palmer,
J.A.,
C.
Honorton,
& J.
Utts,
op.
cit.
,
p.
17.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
Another,
less risky strategy or improving the status and acceptance of
parapsychology
is
to encourage
a constructive dialogue with the critics of the
field.
Indeed,
this process has already begun with the published exchanges
between leading proponents and critics,
the joint communique of Hyman and
Honor ton,
and the OTA workshop
itself.
A more concrete step was suggested in
the joint communique and elaborated upon in the workshop, where
it received
enthusiastic support. 36
This was
to appoint
a committee of parapsychologists
and critics who would jointly evaluate the ongoing work in parapsychology,
establish guidelines for acceptable experimental protocols and,
possibly,
even
design and conduct an independent experiment.
Although there would be obvious
difficulties
to be overcome,
they would pose small barriers compared to those
the field now faces.
This would certainly represent a large step toward
evaluating parapsychology and possibly bringing the field further inside
the
edifice of established science.
36 Hyman,
R.
&
C.
Honorton,
op.
cit.
,
p.
363.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2