Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
criteria of scientific acceptability."^
^0
in this connection,
parapsychologists point to the unreasonableness of requiring extraordinary
proofs and, when such proofs are provided,
dismissing the results
as
a "mere
puzzle."
Critics,
for their part,
reply that the stringent requirements
are
warranted because
the field itself is unique.
One workshop participant listed
several ways
in which,
in his view,
parapsychology
is different from other
fields:
o
It lacks boundary conditions specifying when psi phenomena should and
should not be expected to be present,
o
Only the experimenter effect has been definitively established,
o
There
is no easily replicable paradigm for experiments.
o
Debates are about primary phenomena
(i.e.,
does psi exist or not)
rather
than about
its
"lawfulness."
o
The concept of demonstrating anomalies
is different
--
in parapsychology
the
"successful"
results are not strikingly different from the baseline
model
.
In general,
then,
from the perspective of critics
the criticisms of the
field and its results can be summarized as
follows:
(1)
there has been no
"conclusive"
experiment;
(2)
there
is no truly repeatable parapsychology
experiment;
(3)
the "significant"
results are isolated and disconnected
observations of no obvious scientific
interest;
(4)
the results
are nonsensical
in that they do not suggest any lawful relationships
or progressive research
programs;
and
(5)
even if real,
psi
is
too weak to be of any practical
importance
.
Each of these points
is countered by parapsychologists.
Nevertheless,
given
that harsh assessment by the critics,
it
is relevant
to ask them what would
comprise acceptable proof of psi.
WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE PROOF OF PSI?
Parapsychologists often maintain that the critics have been unwilling or
unable
to specify detailed criteria that would lead them to accept the psi
hypothesis.
In their view,
this enables
the critics
to continually shift their
ground in generating criticism
--
in effect,
presenting a "moving target"
that
moves faster than parapsychologists can adjust their research protocols
and
aims.
29 National Research Council,
op.
cit.
,
pp.
184,
190.
30 Some critics point
to a third study as another example of a well-run,
tightly controlled experiment giving significant results
that are difficult
to explain.
(Schmidt,
H.
,
R.L.
Morris,
&
L.
Rudolph.
Channeling evidence
for
a psychokinetic effect
to independent observers.
Journal of Parapsychology
,
1986,
50:
1-6.)
This study was favorably reviewed in a background paper
prepared for
the NRC committee,
but was omitted from the report's
conclusions.
Parapsychologists claim that there are many other more recent
studies,
not reviewed by the committee,
which would also satisfy any
reasonable standard of acceptability.
31 Rao,
R.K.
& J.
Palmer,
op.
cit.,
p.
541
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
Based on the list of differences
above,
one workshop participant presented
a
list, of criteria that,
in his view,
would need
to be satisfied before
"proof"
of psi could be achieved.
These included both local criteria
(i.e.,
those
focused on the particular experiment)
' and global criteria
(those
that cut across
experiments)
.
Local criteria have
to do with statistical significance and
power,,
and with the experimental methodology and controls.
In this critic's
view,
if a proof relies entirely on statistics,
it
is probably not science.
(It
was noted,
however,
that a full application of this position would eliminate
several well-established fields of science,
such as particle physics.)
Global criteria are
those which,
taken together,
present an overall pattern
that
the scientific community
is forced to recognize and accept.
They include
replicability,
lawfulness,
consistency of effects,
and cumulativeness across
time.
The latter idea
--
that parapsychology represents
a series of fits and
starts over the long term,
with each generation of researchers beginning anew
--
generated considerable discussion.
A number of the parapsychologists described
how their work
is built on the foundation of work that came before.
For
example,
Charles Honorton’s ganzfeld work evolved out of earlier research on ESP
and altered states of consciousness such as dreaming and hypnosis.
Robert Jahn's
resear ch
is built on the earlier work of Schmidt
(with random number generators)
and Puthoff
(in remote viewing).
CONFLICTING ORIENTATIONS
A major challenge that parapsychologists
face
is
the
insistence by many of
their critics
(particularly the psychologists among them)
that all
"normal"
explanations
--
those based on known science,
such as neurological
or
psychological mechanisms,
or those based on the charge of poor methodology
--
for experimental results must first be considered and discarded before psi,
the
paranormal effect,
can be entertained.
In this view,
psi
is
the residuum when
all other possible explanations have been eliminated.
This
issue goes
to
the heart of the problem that skeptical
scientists have
with parapsychology,
which
is
that,
in their view,
parapsychologists begin with
a hypothesis
in which they believe
(viz.,
that there
is
interaction between
consciousness and the physical world)
and then run experiments until
they get
results
that tend
to confirm the hypothesis and the belief.
Critics contend
that,
since
the existence of psi has not been demonstrated,
and since,
indeed,
there
is not even an adequate theory that could support
its existence,
the
presumption that psi explains any anomalous result cannot be supported.
Yet,
the parapsychologists
insist,
this
tendency to believe
in
a certain
explanation for
the effect they are demonstrating through experiment does not
disqualify the experiment.
Indeed,
such belief
is quite common among scientists
in every field.
It
is
the interpretation of results
that
is
open,
they say,
and
it
is not their job
(nor are
they qualified)
to eliminate all possible
physiological and other explanations outside their field of expertise.
They
have simply demonstrated an anomaly in which science ought
to be
interested.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
NEED FOR A THEORY OF PS
Although many theoretical models
of psi have been proposed, ^2 both groups
agree
that a fundamental problem
in psi
is
the
lack of an adequate theory of
paranormality to test by experiment.
It
leaves parapsychologists
in the
unscientific position,
their critics
contend,
of trying
to demonstrate
a
phenomenon that they have no real basis
for seeking.
Conversely
(or perversely,
in the view of parapsychologists),
they are also criticized for premature
theorizing without having first demonstrated that
a phenomenon exists.
It
is here,
the participants
agreed,
that more process-oriented research
is
needed to better define
the nature of
the phenomenon
-- when
it
is manifested,
under what conditions,
in individuals
of what characteristics,
etc..
With a
positive theory of psi
in hand,
parapsychologists would escape
the present
demand that they eliminate every other plausible explanation for their results
until only the residuum,
psi,
remains.
V.
RELATION OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY TO
THE BROADER WORLD OF SCIENCE
IS PARAPSYCHOLOGY A SCIENCE?
Disagreements about
the meaning of experimental results
in parapsychology
and its
aims,
and the general agreement
that
a theory of psi
is
sorely needed,
all converge on the basic question of whether or not parapsychology can be
considered a science.
The discussion in the previous section
is neatly
encapsulated in a single sentence from a recent critical article:^
"Although many parapsychological research projects have been carried out under
what have been described as well-controlled conditions,
this does not by itself
make
a science,
for unless and until
it can be demonstrated that paranormal
phenomena really exist,
there
is no subject matter around which
a science
can
develop.
As was noted earlier,
parapsychologists consider
this view
a form of Catch-
22,
since conditions,
they believe,
are preset
so
that no such demonstration
will be acknowledged.
But
the underlying implication of
the assertion
--
that
science cannot study nothing
--
also draws objections
from parapsychologists.
In their view,
one of the purposes of science
is
to
investigate whether
there
is
nothing
(or something)
present
in an empirical situation.
Whether
the
motivation for
the investigation comes
from prior observation or subjective
expectation
is
irrelevant,
they maintain.
They cite sociology
,
economics
,
and
even astronomy
as analogous
fields
in which "experimentation"
consists
essentially of observation and measurement guided by an imperfect or non-
existent theory.
While
it may be argued that each of these
fields,
unlike
parapsychology,
has
real and obvious
subject matter,
parapsychologists
cite
human experience and the voluminous anecdotal record of paranormal occurrences.
They point out that gravity,
like psi phenomena,
has
long been observed without
benefit of an accepted scientific explanation.
See,
for example:
Jahn,
R.G.
& B.J.
Dunne.
On the quantum mechanics
of
consciousness with application to anomalous phenomena.
Foundations
of
Physics
.
August
1986,
:
721-772
and
the bibliographies
of works
listed as
Notes #1 and #2 above.
33 Alcock,
J.E.,
op.
cit.
,
p.
553.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2
At bottom,
the question of whether parapsychology
is
a science runs up
against philosophical questions that challenge
the prevailing world-view of
contemporary science.
To quote again from the article cited above:
"The dispute about psi reflects the clash of two fundamentally different views
of reality.
The first of these
is the materialistic,
monistic view that the
human mind
is
some sort of emergent manifestation of brain processes,
whereas
the second is
the dualistic position that maintains
that the human
mind/personality
is something beyond the stuff of atoms and molecules."
The
issue of psi thus
seems,
to many,
to transcend ordinary scientific
controversy and to take on overtones of philosophy and even religion.
This fact
seems
to account,
in part,
for the unusually strong resistance
the field has met
with from the scientific establishment.
RESISTANCE BY "ESTABLISHMENT"
SCIENCE
This report has made repeated reference
to the difficulty that
parapsychology has encountered,
throughout
its long history,
in gaining
acceptance within the scientific community.
This resistance by the scientific
establishment appears
to have taken three
forms:
(1)
the loosely defined but
stringent criteria for proof imposed on parapsychology experiments;
(2)
a nearly
total rejection by mainstream scientific journals of articles or research
reports supporting parapsychology;
and
(3)
the more derisive and more public
form of criticism practiced by some members of the CSICOP
.
One workshop participant documented a long series of exchanges with the
management of the journal Science and its parent organization,
the American
Association for the Advancement of Science,
over
the
issue of publication.
No
report of research conducted by a parapsychologist has ever been published in
Science
.
although criticisms of parapsychological research have been published
from time
to
time.
According to this participant,
parapsychology research
reports submitted to Science have been reviewed by reviewers
from outside
the
field and rejected on often arbitrary and irrelevant grounds.
Positive reviews
by parapsychologists are evidently discounted on the basis
that
the reviewers
are biased by their belief
in psi.
Repeated efforts
to bring this
situation
to
the attention of Science and AAAS management apparently failed to gain a
sympathetic hearing.
This
individual recommends
(1)
that editors and grant-
givers be required to define publicly the qualifications of their reviewers
for
any given paper or proposal and
(2)
that reviewers be required to sign their
evaluations
.
Also heard during the workshop was the suggestion that there
is
a hierarchy
of sciences,
in which psychology and the other social sciences rank below the
physical sciences
and,
indeed,
from the most conservative perspective
are still
only barely established as being legitimate.
According to
this view,
psychologists
(generally the most active in criticism of parapsychology)
do not
wish to be tarnished by association with a field that resembles psychology but
which they consider unscientific and "flaky."
They are therefore anxious
to act
as
the
"gatekeepers"
of science with respect
to parapsychology,
partly in order
to reinforce their own sense of legitimacy and acceptability.
Those who hold
this rather harsh view suggest
that there may also be an underlying motivation
to suppress potential competitors
for
the
same limited pool of research funds.
34 Alcock,
J.E.,
op.
cit.,
p.
565.
Approved For Release 2003/09/09
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2