Lack of progression

[Dr B]

Parapsychology and general paranormal research seems to be typified by effects that cannot be replicated and little or no progression of ideas / theories and facts. In this sense, these areas are in a somewhat unique position amongst other sciences - as all other fields move on.

Why do you think progression of ideas, theories, and facts is sooooooo slow in this area? There may be many reasons for it, and it would be good to discuss them here, but what do we all think as being the principle reasons for it? Any thoughts?

[Mojo]

Sure it's progressed: just not in the direction it wants to. Go back to the 19th or early 20th century and people were getting amazing results. Now it's down to "can maybe have an almost unmeasurable effect on random number generators" and similar.

[Jocky]

Sure it's progressed: just not in the direction it wants to.

That's "regressed" [snicker]

[Araneus]

Why do you think progression of ideas, theories, and facts is sooooooo slow in this area? There may be many reasons for it, and it would be good to discuss them here, but what do we all think as being the principle reasons for it? Any thoughts?

Presumably because the majority of practitioners have little or no respect for scientific rigour and are more interested in confirming their hypotheses, resulting in a large number of ideas which are at best tenuous and at worst plain bunk.

There are notable exceptions, such as Richard Wiseman, who understand that the appropriate way to investigate paranormal experiences is to look for alternative explanations, rather than seeking only evidence that confirms one's existing beliefs.

[Cuddles]

They are looking for something that doesn't exist, but which they believe does for no reason other than blind faith. It is impossible for them to make progress in the same way it is impossible for the pope to make progress on the issue of the existence of god.

Also, most paranormal researchers are not scientists. It is easy for someone with a few bits of complicated electronics to fool the general public into thinking they are doing science, but without a proper scientific education they are unlikely to understand the principles behind the scientific method. There is a good reason scientists spend years in training. No doubt many of them think they are scientific, and do so with the best intentions, but without a basic understanding of what science really is they will never be able to progress beyond the stage of "I think ghosts exist, and here's some funny emf readings".

[kath23]

It's a dead end. Like if someone years ago tried to prove the four humours existed. Wiseman is good because he shows the magick of the human mind without assertinng the normal flakiness of self-help books etc.

As a branch of psycholgy, there's some avenues there such as wisemans' work. Other than that, I think neuroscientific experiments to make people have wierd experiences are interesting.

[Mojo]

Sure it's progressed: just not in the direction it wants to.

That's "regressed" [snicker]


No, eliminating alleged phenomena that don't exist is progress (and the progress they're making appears to be very consistent ;) ).

[Jocky]

Sure it's progressed: just not in the direction it wants to.

That's "regressed" [snicker]


No, eliminating alleged phenomena that don't exist is progress (and the progress they're making appears to be very consistent ;) ).


Yes, point taken - eliminating incorrect hypotheses does indeed represent progress. Forgive my rather my rather ungallant snicker. Norty Jocky!

However this progress doesn't seem to have much impact in denting the absolute faith-based certainty which so many woos seem to possess that their beliefs will eventually be vindicated. The gap between science and woo-ism has been steadily widening for centuries, and that is regression from their point of view - or it would be if only they were prepared to accept the science.

For instance, it's over 150 years since Faraday's famous experiment which demonstrated the part played by ideomotor action in seances - and astonishingly many people today still take ouija boards seriously ::)

Negative results in paranormal research do not seem to have much impact on popular perception. And given the very high probability of such results, which are of little interest either to the media or to funding bodies, it is perhaps not surprising that the rate progress is on the slow side.

[Dr B]

All sciences need positive results....or at least, all other than parapsychology... >:D

[Admin]

I think the key stumbling block to the progress of PSI research in general is the inability for researchers to acquire robust evidence.

In science, generally speaking, observations are made, hypotheses formed, tests designed and performed, results analysed, and hypotheses repeated/refined/accepted/discarded as appropriate.

With something real, tests will provide meaningful evidence that can be used for further investigation and advancement of the area under study; but with PSI research they cannot come up with robust evidence for anything under research, so the entire field (AFAIK) is stuck firmly in the hypothesis stage.

My opinion is that this is because PSI phenomena simply don't exist. If even one area of it was real, I would expect that some decent, robust evidence would have been found by now.

That's not to say that such areas are not worth studying, but I would say that anomalous experiences are better studied by cognitive psychologists than so-called parapsychologists.

[Mojo]

With something real, tests will provide meaningful evidence that can be used for further investigation and advancement of the area under study; but with PSI research they cannot come up with robust evidence for anything under research, so the entire field (AFAIK) is stuck firmly in the hypothesis stage.

A few months ago there was a speaker at Skeptics in the Pub who described himself as a "theoretical parapsychologist". He was actually a theoretical physicist who thought about psi in his spare time. He didn't seem to get the idea that while he can work as a theoretical physicist because physics has robust mathematically described theories which have been developed as a result of hundreds of years worth of reliable observations, psi just doesn't have this.

ETA: Discussed here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php/topic,118.75.html

[dalriada]

I came across this quotation the other day. It was written by illustrator and sometime occultist WT Horton to poet and SPR member William Butler Yeats in 1914. I think it's beautifully phrased.

" All this Spiritism & Spiritistic investigation leads to nothing. It is just turning round & round in a circle and is never a spiral. Spiritists do not want to be convinced- they are that already. Unbelivers scoff at the whole thing & Scientists will accept nothing but strictly Scientific demonstration. Telepathy, the vast powers of hidden self, suggestion, hynotism and self hynotism account for nearly everything in the way of automatism. It wants a particularly hard, precise & unimaginative mind to sum up the for and against of all these matters..."

I can't say that I entirely agree that nothing was achieved. Certainly not in terms of all the entertainment and diversion people have had as a result.

I just wish psychical researchers now could write as well as their counterparts a century ago. *

[Dr B]

I certainly agree that modern para-researchers do not write as well, and are indeed, not as well read as their historical counterparts.

I am generalising of course, and there are always exceptions, but these do not typify the field:-\

Most people call themselves 'experts' these days - or put the word 'science' in the title of their association in the hope of being seen as such, rather than actually making the effort to ensure they are seen as such, and justifiably so....

[dalriada]

I agree. Once upon a time miraculous evidence for psychic phenomena was showing up all the time. Then along came scientific methods and laboratory research and it all started to shrink. I have a sneaking suspicion that if conclusive evidence for psi were found in lab research today, that the only people who would be able to appreciate it would be a handful of parapsychologists themselves and those with an advanced understanding of mathematics (who would probably have limited interest anyway, what with time travel and particles being more exciting).

So parapsychology has slipped out of the labs and started to roam..
Boys do fieldwork. A broad spectrum. All the way from paranormal nerdiness with ghostometers and mediums to the sort of physics & neuroscience research that Dr B has been presenting recently on these forums and in the literature.

But! Not everyone in parapsychology has that "hard science" background and not everyone likes maths/statistics. However there is an alternative approach- Qualitative Research. Its utilised in a variety of disciplines and possibly parapsychology's overt desire to be seen as "real" science (with labs, and sums and gizmos!) has possibly meant that para-people have come rather later to this approach than may have been expected. Possibly the lack of progression with previous research approaches has meant that they have now had to look at other methodological avenues. More cynically, one might suggest, that with the rise of the "paranormal subculture", widening access to higher education and some very new universities, the calibre of student coming to the field is no longer what it may have been- and without maths and labs and gizmos- Qualitative research sounds easier. No hard edges.

At any rate, I believe that qualitative methods could well be parasychology's great white hope.

So what the hell am I talking about- what are qualitative methods? First thing you should know is that in social science people have been willing to spill blood over the topic. There have been lots of otherwise staid academics calling other equally staid academics Nazis because of their views on the subject. I may be exaggerating a teeny bit there- but not much.The debate over "quantitative methods" (numbers and all- the hard stuff) and "qualitative methods" (the soft stuff which I hesitate to call it research for girls..) has been referred to as THE PARADIGM WARS.

Big words are used.

Qualitative and quantitative methods are based on a different set of assumptions concerning reality (ontology), knowledge of that reality (epistemology), and the particular ways of knowing that reality (methodology).

The quantitative paradigm is based on positivism. The ontological position of the quantitative paradigm is that there is only one truth, an objective reality that exists independent of human perception. Epistemologically, the investigator and investigated are independent entities. Therefore, the investigator is capable of studying a phenomenon without influencing it or being influenced by it as if inquiry takes place as through a one-way mirror. The goal is to measure and analyse causal relationships between variables within a value-free framework. Research techniques associated with a quantitative approach include randomised controlled trials, statistical analysis, experiments etc etc.

In contrast to this, the qualitative paradigm is based on an interpretivist approach and constructivism. In terms of ontology there are multiple realities or multiple truths as reality is socially constructed and so is constantly changing. In terms of epistemology, there is no access to a reality independent of our minds, and no external reference point by which to compare claims of truth. The investigator and the object of study are interactively linked so that findings are mutually created within the context of the situation which shapes the inquiry. As a result the emphasis of qualitative research is on process and meanings. Qualitative research is a creative process. Methods associated with the qualitative approach include focus groups, unstructured interviews, ethnographic case studies.

Therefore if para-researchers adopt a qualitative paradigm in which there are multiple realities, different ways of knowing, no ultimate truth (and indeed NO SPOON) there is no need to provide the kind of quantitative proof which has so far eluded the field.

Hallelujah!


O0

[median]

Dalriada

I think you'll find that many scientific disciplines use both qualitative and quantitative analyses, certainly the 'social' types. It is not just a simple picture of them versus us. So whilst I accept your position that a tension may exist between the two camps I think that to present the picture as one of mutual exclusivity is. in my view, simplistic and possibly misleading.

Regards

Median

O0

[dalriada]

Indeed, and I use both approaches myself, but I think you have to reflect on why you're using qual research and be aware of the debates and potential criticisms (and the criticisms can be SAVAGE).

My general point was that if the main criticism of parapsych research is that there has been no progression in terms quantitative proof of "psi" or whatever, choosing to adopt a qualitative paradigm means you can carry out research without such proof. As I said in my earlier post this approach is taken in a variety of disciplines, anthropologists for example have been researching shamans and religious experience for a long time now using such approaches. It remains to be seen if para-researchers can improve upon their efforts and that long research tradition when they look at issues such as "mediumship"...

My previous post wasn't meant to be a kicking of qualitative research, I'm fond of it, but it's a tricky business. Mygeneral position on research methods (and forgive me if you find this to be the "ladybird version" I'm aiming for clarity) Is this: First, the two approaches (qualitative and quantitative) can be combined because they share the goal of understanding the world in which we live both qualitative and quantitative research share a unified logic, and that the same rules of inference apply to both.Second, the two paradigms are compatible because they share the tenets of theory-ladenness of facts, fallibility of knowledge, determination of theory by fact, and a value-laden inquiry process. They are also united by a shared commitment to understanding and improving the human condition, a common goal of disseminating knowledge for practical use, and a shared commitment for rigour, conscientiousness, and critique in the research process. In fact, qualitative and quantitative methods might even be viewed as part of a continuum of research with specific techniques selected based on the research objective.Thirdly combining research methods is particularly useful in some areas of research, such as health and social care, because the complexity of phenomena requires data from a large number of perspective and the use of a broad spectrum of qualitative and quantitative methods strengthens research design. Finally, it has also been argued that researchers should not be too preoccupied with the quantitative-qualitative debate because it will not be resolved in the near future, and that epistemological purity does not get research done .

I have some thoughts on why qual research might be quite challenging for para-type research specifically but I have to do some work today so I guess it can wait....

[median]

anthropologists for example have been researching shamans and religious experience for a long time now using such approaches

That I understand but, as I understand it, to ascertain the social/ethnic aspects of their culture and not specifically to validate a claim that a certain spirit exists.


My previous post wasn't meant to be a kicking of qualitative research

Actually I saw it as quite the opposite.:-\

Whilst I share your thoughts on the synergistic use of the two approaches I am concerned that paranormal research will seize upon one aspect almost exclusively with the aim to justify their position. I think a good example of this is the so-called 'skeptic effect' which is used by psychics to excuse their poor performance under rigorous conditions.


Therefore if para-researchers adopt a qualitative paradigm in which there are multiple realities, different ways of knowing, no ultimate truth (and indeed NO SPOON) there is no need to provide the kind of quantitative proof which has so far eluded the field.


I think you summed it up there.O0

[Dr B]

But! Not everyone in parapsychology has that "hard science" background and not everyone likes maths/statistics.


That's their problem. A physics student would not get away with it - and to be honest nor would a psychology student. Science is what it as and it requires a certain skill base - if you dont have that skill base....well.....:cheesy:


If you dont like statisitics - it is difficult to see how you could study anything and make a useful claim about it beyond "trends" and basic "differences". Even qualitative research has developed reasonably useful statistics for its purpose. You also need to understand statistics in order to evaluate the research of others.



Regards qualitative research - I really see it as down to what sort of thing you want to study, what sort of questions you want to ask, and what sort of answers would be sufficient. If that leads you to adopt a qualitative approach - fine.

Quantitative approaches give better precision which is crucial for a more comprehensive understanding. In addition they reveal small, yet important differences more - due to the precision. If you can apply a quantitative approach to the object of study - then my advice would be to do so - unless there is a good reason not to.

I for one do not see qualitative approaches as bad science - though they do bring their own problems.

It is also not an excuse to avoid hard-science. You still have to analyse data and some of the procedures for qualitative analysis can be quite convoluted and highly questionnable - so its no more easier in that sense.

In my opinion, qualitative research is not a shoe-horn to squeeze in poor methods and understanding and should not be used as an excuse on the part of the researcher. To use them properly requires considerable skill.

[Dr B]

I dont think the lack of progression can be put down to a differrence between qualitative and quantitative methods.

The claims made by psychics etc are really very basic, and very basic tests using very simple quantitative methods should have been able to demonstrate them (in a basic proof-oriented manner).

Very interesting thoughts and suggestions though..... O0;)

[dalriada]

That I understand but, as I understand it, to ascertain the social/ethnic aspects of their culture and not specifically to validate a claim that a certain spirit exists.



Exactly. However, a parapsych person using a qualitative approach to look at for the sake of argument "mediumship" or "healing" isn't necessarily trying to validate a claim that those actually exist as independent truths either.

For example- from a phenomenological perspective, you're looking at "lived experience", process, nature (blah blah) etc and in that approach there are multiple truths. Perceptions are reality. If the people you're observing and interviewing say "mediumship" or "healing" exist. Then they do!

And from that philosophical perspective, its perfectly acceptable. Thus Para people can investigate psi for the next 100 years without finding "Proof" by using arguments already rehearsed at great length in social sciences. YAY!

But what's the point?

Anthropologists have developed their own set of theories and their own methods (like ethnography) because of anthropological work we know more about culture, we're not as inclined to dismiss other people as "savages" as we once were. The world is a better place. Progress. However, unless more intellectual rigour is brought into parapsych qual research in hundred years time, it'll still be spinning in circles. Although I would suspect that few people may well have jumped the academic ship by then and be making much more profitable livings out in woo-world with the PhDs they've got in "Mediumship" and "healing"...

Totally agree with everything else you said Median, possibly I wasn't as clear as I thought I'd been (and some of my cynicism may have been lost in textulation!)
:smiley:


PS: I think there's a subtle distinction in viewing "Progress" (as you would) meaning discovery and advancement of knowledge and "Progress" from a career parapsychologist's view, which may also mean survival and growth of the field.

[dalriada]

That's their problem. A physics student would not get away with it - and to be honest nor would a psychology student.



And, just from the small bit of parapsych qualitative stuff I've read, a sociology student, a social policy, social worker or nurse researcher would be unlikely to get away with it either.:-\

I think that research has three main purposes 1) to advance knowledge, 2) to improve the lot of humanity, 3) to satisfy curiousity.

You choose a methodology to test your hypotheses or answer your research questions. Your data will only be as good as your methodogy. Your analysis will only be as good as the researcher.
A good piece of of qual research has tightly defined terms, rigorous methodology and should be replicable, replicable, replicable.

Qualitative researchers must be very self-aware. As qual research is an interpretative process it's very open to claims that what is being presented is in fact just the researcher's own opinions, and that to some extent they've just been investigating themselves. Previous Parapsych lab research (Ganzfeld etc) has taken a lot of flak over experimenter effects, the extent to which people are finding what they want to find and it seems to me that in choosing a qualitative methdodology, parasych researchers leave themselves open to those claims to an even greater extent and they need to be aware of that. I'm not sure that they are. In particular, because the researcher is such a key part of the research process in qualitative research, personal integrity is very much more on the line.

There are ways and means of dealing with these pitfalls, but people operating entirely in a parapsych world, researching in parapsych units, publishing in parapsych journals and getting funding (this amazes me) from parapsych organisations aren't necessarily going to be up to speed and so it all goes happily skipping down the primrose path....

[Dr B]

Fair points well made O0

But I still dont think this explains the lack of progression.......

[dalriada]

Oh I thought that was explained, as in its all a great big exercise in navel gazing, joyful paranormal nerdiness and intellectual onanistic activity. ;)

Parapsychology has survived and its replicating. Thatmay be progress enough.

[Admin]

For example- from a phenomenological perspective, you're looking at "lived experience", process, nature (blah blah) etc and in that approach there are multiple truths. Perceptions are reality. If the people you're observing and interviewing say "mediumship" or "healing" exist. Then they do!

No they don't. Those people merely believe they do but people can be wrong.

This is taking relativism and applying it to empirical issues. That's not an appropriate use. Relativism can only be used on subjective values and not empirical measurements.

As Dr B pointed out, most psychics' claims can easily be tested empirically and where they can be, that is the most appropriate way to do it.

The reason there's a lack of progress with psychical research is because the there's nothing there (!)

Or at least it is logically sound to make that statement (it's based on lack of evidence where it would be expected to be found - negative evidence) and hold it as being provisionally true unless it can be proven otherwise.

If we resort to relativism then anything goes. Everything is as true or as false as you want it to be - i.e. a faith-based belief system.

Skeptics are looking for the objective reality to these issues.

Phenomenology has been used in the past but all it can tell us is how people experience psychical phenomena, but this doesn't tell us anything about the reality of such phenomena.

I agree that qualitative research is an important aspect as it aids an overall understanding of the subjects but it can't provide definitive answers to whether things like psychic abilities are real.

[dalriada]

I dont think the lack of progression can be put down to a differrence between qualitative and quantitative methods.

The claims made by psychics etc are really very basic, and very basic tests using very simple quantitative methods should have been able to demonstrate them (in a basic proof-oriented manner).



Adopt an approach like phenomenology and you don't have to prove them and paraapsychology can dodge that bullet.

(Kind of like Neo, but not so stylish)

[Dr B]

Actually you do - different approaches do not escape logic. That's what they fail to understand.

I will post more on this at a later date - but if that is their reasoning - they are quite wrong - even philosophically.

[dalriada]

No they don't. Those people merely believe they do but people can be wrong..

Yes people can be wrong. But who are we to say that in such oppressive fashion...? << insert Hitler argument here blah blah blah>>>>There's a whole long set of arguments in response...

And they don't lead ANYWHERE.

But if all you want to do is spin in circles for a hundred years or so they will provide a means of doing it...>:D Which is why some sections of parapsychology might find such approaches attractive ...

What should be done? Are there ethics and morals involved here?

[dalriada]

Actually you do - different approaches do not escape logic. That's what they fail to understand.

I will post more on this at a later date - but if that is their reasoning - they are quite wrong - even philosophically.


Have you read about the Sokal Hoax?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense


I recommend the book

http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078

[Dr B]

What should be done? Are there ethics and morals involved here?

No - just logic

[dalriada]

No - just logic


So no bid for possession of the moral high ground then...? We could rent it out for stonings and witch burnings...?

>:D

Are you really sure..??
Ah go on...
>:D>:D>:D

[Dr B]

Have you read about the Sokal Hoax?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense


I recommend the book

http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078


I have not read that one - but I am familiar with the argument (which is somewhat akin to relativism) which I think is based on flawed reasoning and misunderstandings about science and the brain....

[Dr B]

So no bid for possession of the moral high ground then...? We could rent it out for stonings and witch burnings...?

<IMG class=inlineimg title=">:D" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22">

Are you really sure..??
Ah go on...
<IMG class=inlineimg title=">:D" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22"><IMG class=inlineimg title=">:D" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22"><IMG class=inlineimg title=">:D" alt="" src="http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/images/smilies/evil.gif" border=0 smilieid="22">


if only...........;D

[Admin]

Yes people can be wrong. But who are we to say that in such oppressive fashion...?

Oppressive? Is that a subjective value judgement? :cheesy:

We can say they're wrong by testing their claims objectively to see if they stand up to scrutiny. In other words, back to where we started (!)

[dalriada]

Oppressive? Is that a subjective value judgement? :cheesy:

oooh you're getting the hang of that line of argument VERY quickly ^-^


We can say they're wrong by testing their claims objectively to see if they stand up to scrutiny. In other words, back to where we started (!)


Yes! Spinning in circles and never a spiral. :cheesy: