Parapsychology is the search for paranormal phenomena, such as ESP and psychokinesis. Most scientists try to explain observable phenomena. Parapsychologists try to observe unexplainable phenomena. All the other sciences have led us away from superstition and magical thinking, while parapsychology has tried to find a scientific basis for divination, magical powers, and spirits.

It is absurd to say that parapsychology is a non-scientific study or more specifically that it is biased towards a specific outcome. This statement originates in the authors false assumptions that all such phenomena can be explained by known physical and psychological processes. Parapsychology uses the methodology of science to study specific aspects of the human experience which seem to fall outside our present knowledge base. The operative word here is "study", not "search" or "presume". Parapsychology did not originate to prove the existence of superstitious belief or magical thinking. It originated because people do experience events which they themselves describe as: transformative, transpersonal, extraordinary and exceptional. As with all sciences, personal bias is often interjected into research. While there are faulty parapsychologists who have presumed events to be of supernatural origin there are also, as illustrated here, debunkers who assume that consciousness and reality are "solved" functions.

Much parapsychology today attempts to find statistical oddities that can't be explained either by the laws of chance or by any other known natural causes. Parapsychologists assume in such cases that they have found evidence for psi.

Parapsychological research in recent years has become adept at minimizing external influences and confounding variables in both psychokinetic and probability studies. Well performed studies are self correcting and take into account relevant natural causes. Call the phenomena what you will; parapsychologists use the term PSI which is a general term implying that consciousness interacts with materiality in some as of yet unknown manner. Describing data in this way is an assumption and may ultimately prove untrue. However, do to the sophistication and outcome of such studies it is inadequate to say parapsychologists assumptions are unfounded or unreasonable. Another way of looking at this topic is to ask why the debunker assumes such data to be of known mechanism when no such factors appear to adequately explain the phenomena. Debunkers could participate scientifically if rather than generally saying parapsychologists assume to much they offered an explanation which properly accounts for the phenomena.

Scientific methodology in this field dates from at least 1882 at the founding of the Society for Psychical Research in London, which continues to flourish. Its initial members sought to distinguish psychic phenomena from spiritism, and to investigate mediums and their activities. They studied automatic writing, levitation, and reports of ectoplasmic and poltergeist activity. In America, Joseph Banks Rhine (1895-1980) conducted psi experiments at Duke University in the 1930s. His work continues at the Rhine Research Center and at various labs across the country where experiments have concentrated principally on extrasensory perception (ESP), psychokinesis, remote viewing, and astral projection. There are at least half a dozen peer-reviewed journals of parapsychology. However, research in this area has been characterized by deception, fraud, and incompetence in setting up properly controlled experiments and evaluating statistical data (Alcock 1990; Gardner 1981; Gordon 1987; Hansel 1989; Hines 1990; Hyman 1989; Park 2000; Randi 1982).

I believe it to be fair and relevant to say that Parapsychology has a tainted past. Many well studied and fair minded people have been deceived with beliefs of the supernatural and unexplainable. I see no good reason however to single out parapsychology as being flawed. Every branch of science has it's scandals and misconceptions. What is relevant is that substantive review and suspensions of belief systems occur in the practice of all research. The bottom line is that there are still a large number of human experiences which are yet unexplained. Science should not shun or exhibit bias towards such experiences because they defy our current conceptual framework.

Americans Charles Tart and Raymond Moody, among many others continue to expand upon Rhine's work. The CIA and the U.S. military have hired parapsychologists and studied alleged psychics such as Ingo Swann and Joe McMoneagle.  Parasychological research has been done at several places in the U.S., including the Maimonides Hospital Dream Laboratory in Brooklyn, New York, the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research lab; the University of Virginia Division of Perceptual Studies, and the University of Edinburgh, whose psychology department has the Koestler Chair of Parapsychology, and publishes the European Journal of Parapsychology. Parapsychologists have many other publications, as well.

Psi researchers often find evidence for psi, but a yearlong study done by the United States Air Force Research Laboratories (the VERITAC study, named after the computer used) was unable to verify the existence of ESP. A careful and properly designed study by Richard C. Sprinthall and Barry S. Lubetkin published in the Journal of Psychology (vol. 60, pp. 313-18) found no evidence of ESP. Some parapsychologists, such as Susan Blackmore, have abandoned the search for psi after years of failing to find any significant support for paranormal phenomena (Blackmore 1987, 2000).

While it is true that some parapsychologists falsely identify natural phenomena as PSI there is a large body of evidence in support of PSI. Overall there is certainly enough evidence that further research is warranted. It simply isn't science if you throw out evidence because it defies what is expected.

Despite the fact that psychologist have been in the forefront of paranormal studies, a study of 1,100 college professors in the United States found that only 34% of psychologists believe that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. Comparable figures for other disciplines are much higher: natural scientists (55%), social scientists [excluding psychologists] (66%) and for academics in the arts, humanities, and education (77%). Of the psychologists surveyed, 34% believe psi is an impossibility, while only 2% of the other respondents maintained this position (Wagner and Monnet 1979).

What should be obvious from the paragraph above is that highly educated persons are typically open minded to the idea of PSI. Psychology has become so far removed from the class of experiences studied by parapsychologists that it is probably irrelevant to compare the two in the manner above.

Parapsychologists who claim to have found positive results often systematically ignore or rationalize their own studies if they don’t support psi. Rhine discarded data that didn’t support his beliefs, claiming subjects were intentionally getting answers wrong (psi-missing). Many, if not most, psi researchers allow optional starting and optional stopping. Most psi researchers limit their research to investigating parlor tricks (guessing the number or suit of a playing card, or “guess what Zener card I am looking at” or “try to influence this random number generator with your thoughts”). Any statistical strangeness is attributed to paranormal events.

The author refers to "statistical strangeness" without any explanation of what it's cause is. None of the items above alter the statistical significance of a well designed study. Again it isn't rational to accuse all parapsychologists as being fatally biased while at the same time taking such a polarized position. There have been a number of well done meta analyses on the so called "file drawer" or "trash can" effect. The results of studies such as Dean Radin's indicate that there is still a significant effect size with modern PSI studies.

From the standpoint of physics there seems to be a major problem with the assumption and alleged discovery by some parapsychologists that spatial distance is irrelevant to psi. Three of the four known forces in nature weaken with distance.* Thus, as Einstein pointed out in a letter to Dr. Jan Ehrenwald, “This suggests...a very strong indication that a non-recognized source of systematic errors may have been involved [in ESP experiments]” (Garder 1981, 153). The skeptic would rather believe that ESP doesn’t exist than that there is some very strong and powerful force that is undetectable even though we’re able to detect what must be a much weaker force, gravity, without any trouble at all.

Physics is neither complete as a science nor is it accurate to say that it directly denies the possibility of PSI. There is presently no predictable framework for discussing PSI. ESP experiments (and some physics experiments) do seem to indicate information transfer faster than light and that space/time as we know it as being only partially understood. Science allows us to expand our perspective of the world so long as we don't falsely cling to old views. It is a valid argument against PSI that there exists no conceptual model to which it might be compared. It should however be noted that compared to some presently accepted models in Quantum physics, parapsychology studies seem middle of the road.

Recently, the work of Charles Honorton and his ganzfeld experiments have been put forth as examples of proper scientific studies whose integrity cannot be doubted. Maybe. But the data from these experiments illustrate another problem with much research in parapsychology: correlations don't establish causality. Finding a correlation which is not what would be predicted by chance does not establish a causal event, much less that if it is a causal event it must be a paranormal event. Furthermore, even if there is a causal event, the correlation itself isn't of much use in determining what that event consists of. What you think is cause may be the effect. Or, there may be some third, unknown, factor which is causing the effect observed. Or, the correlation may be due to chance, even if it is statistically unlikely in a certain sense. The apparent chance correlation may actually be statistically likely over the long run. So, the fact that a group of test subjects identifies correctly which of four pictures someone else has seen at a .36 rate when .25 is what chance predicts doesn't establish a causal event. Nor does it, of course, establish ESP as the cause, if there is a cause. The event may well be causal, but the real cause may be something quite ordinary, such as fraud, unintentional cues, or some tendency to bias in the subject matters selected by chance. If other researchers can duplicate the results with more and more rigorous tests, then it will become highly probable that causal events are being measured. Then, the problem will be to find the cause. Maybe it will turn out to be a psychic force hitherto undetected by physics, but this seems unlikely.

This is a good example of the authors bias. Charles Honorton's ganzfeld experiment demonstrates proper scientific methodology but...there just must be some other cause for it's data other than PSI. The study mentioned here controlled for all of the factors that the author contends must have flawed it but still refuses to acknowledge that such experiments are worthwhile and serve an important scientific function. The author as well seems to have a poor grasp of statistical significance of this and other related studies. "Or, the correlation may be due to chance, even if it is statistically unlikely in a certain sense". This statement is completely flawed. Correlation does not imply causation but the author is still not offering any meaningful alternative to the conclusions drawn in such studies.

Parapsychologists, such as Dean Radin, also point to the work of Robert Jahn at Princeton University as an example of strong evidence of psychokinesis. Skeptics disagree.

Look at the studies yourself. Draw your own conclusions rather than believing blatantly biased opinions. Most modern researchers go to extraordinary lengths to try and account for confounding variables. It is important to understand that our view of the world and consciousness is incomplete. I have always viewed parapsychology as a field which is free to study the fringe phenomena that may provide the missing links so prevalent in other areas of study. Skepticism and curiosity are critical aspects of science. Personally I find the position of PSI COP and SKEPDIC to be as polarized as that of many "True Believers" and religious fanatics. Science operates best when we are skeptically open to alternatives, not when we have already made up our minds and are simply trying to validate either our positive or negative beliefs.

~Scott F.