What's Ahead? (2000)

DEAN I. RADIN [1] All conferences held this year are required to have at least one talk devoted to the challenges and opportunities of the new millennium, so my talk tonight is en tided, What's Ahead? I'm going to speculate about the kind of future where psychic phenomena are studied in every university and where we see the same rates of progress in this domain as we've seen in other scientific disciplines. What will that world look like? It's tempting to imagine that this world will come about because of an overwhelming mass of experimental data, perhaps combined with an astonishing new scientific theory. We'll publish these data and theory in a major science journal, and the scientific mainstream will say we were wrong to doubt you, so here's a grant for a million dollars and please accept our sincere apologies. Of course, back in the real world, we know that science doesn't work this way. Science consists of more than data and theory. Equally important is the social context in which science finds itself. This social context determines to a very large extent not the nature of truth, but what is allowed to be studied. Imagine that we live in a dry, desert land, far from the ocean. Everyone knows that nothing can live in salty water, so sober-minded scientists pay no attention to the ocean. Unfortunately, in spite of what everyone knows, we keep hearing stories about astonishing creatures that people sometimes see in the ocean. We're puzzled by the paradox between what everyone knows and what people keep reporting, so we decide to see for ourselves if the stories are true. After a long journey, we reach the edge of the ocean. After watching it for just a few minutes, we are amazed to find that sometimes creatures do indeed jump out of the water. We decide to investigate in more detail, so we use a crude net to try to grab some of those ocean creatures. After lots of trial and error, and fending off hoards of cynics sitting on the shore and laughing at our efforts, we are lucky enough to catch some fish. We don't catch them every time, but we catch them often enough to confirm that what everyone knows is actually incorrect: Some creatures do live in salty water. With great pride, we bring these fish home to show what we've found. Well, we know the end of this story. Even with fish in hand, our discovery doesn't fit in with common knowledge. Since everyone knows that fish tales are children's stories, any evidence we offer will be insufficient. In this context, it doesn't matter how good our fishing nets are, or how many fish we might catch. How do we break out of this frustrating situation? Three things must occur: First, we must generate better evidence. Second, we must imagine more persuasive theories that explain the evidence. And third, we must apply pressure on the societal assumptions about who we are and what we're doing. What does all this have to do with parapsychology? Is there any reason to believe that society is changing in such a way that psi research will no longer be considered controversial? I think the answer is undeniably yes. Here are seven examples of recent events that support my optimism. First, starting this fall (1999), past president of the Parapsychological Association (PA) Deborah Delanoy will become a professor in the Psychology Division at University College Northampton, in England. In this new professorship she will assist in developing a center of research excellence specifically in parapsychology and related areas. This same university previously hired two other PA members: Chris Roe, who is now a senior lecturer and, more recently, Simon Sherwood, who is now a lecturer. These three positions, along with at least six other university posts now held by graduates of the University of Edinburgh parapsychology unit, demonstrate that the approach that Robert Morris has taken with the Koestler Chair has been outstandingly successful. …