Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
criteria of scientific acceptability
. "29
jn 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
. 31
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 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8
Approved For Release 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001 -8
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
research
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 2000/08/08
: CIA-RDP96-00789R002200450001-8