Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
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 07 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,
1£:
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 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
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 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8 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. 35)
This would required working toward a better understanding of the
conditions and characteristics
tinder 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 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001 -8