Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2 20 NEED FOR A THEORY OF PSI Although many theoretical models of psi have been proposed, 22 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, ete.. 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:3 “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. 32 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, 16: 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 21 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
Approved For Release 2003/09/09 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100130001-2 22 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 spectrum 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.?>) 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. 35 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 93 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 Honorton, 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