Parapsychology as Science

[Dr. C]

Is parapsychology a science in it's own right? Is it, as I think, a field where scientists apply approaches from their own area of expertise? (e.g. physicists, psychologists, neuroscientists, historians etc).?

Also, following on from a point made elsewhere, what makes a parapsychology unit? Or even more contentious, what makes a parapsychologist?

[Nicky]

Really interesting points. Would really love to contribute to thread but need to risk lightening strikes and get to work.

But ... before I go ... I don't think there's really such a thing as a parapsychologist .. A psychologist who specialises in parapsychology, yes ... A parapsychologist, no ...

Have a good day guys ..

N

[Nucular]

Is it, as I think, a field where scientists apply approaches from their own area of expertise? (e.g. physicists, psychologists, neuroscientists, historians etc).?

I think more usually it's a field where scientists apply approaches from other people's area of expertise. So many of the scientists who have delved into this area have assumed that their sterling work done in the area of, say, fluid dynamics, fully qualifies them to investigate controversial aspects of human behaviour. Or similarly, that their groundbreaking research into dual processing theories of memory has given them the necessary skills to wield vast chunks of hypersensitive electronics in a draughty old house.

Less multidisciplinary than kleptodisciplinary.

[Cuddles]

I've always thought of parapsychology as a real science. The trouble is that most people who call themselves parapsychologists know nothing about science and use the term to make themselves sound scientific. I'm fairly sure there are at least a few genuine research institutes in universities (Edinborough and Princeton are the best known) that are actually scientific, but they tend to be drowned out by all the quacks.

Edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology - the bottom of this article has links to several of them.

[asthmatic camel]

Dr. Susan Blackmore began her work in this field believing that there must be some basis for belief in paranormal phenomena (IIRC she said this on Desert Island Discs). After many years of research, she found no evidence whatsoever that any psychic or paranormal powers exist, changed her mind and said so publicly, much to the irritation of the believers. Here's a link (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html) giving her reasons changing tack.

She's a colourful character whom I admire. (Not too sure about "memes", though.)

[Mojo]

She's a colourful character...


Especially her hair! ;)

She had a splendid piece about homeopathy (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2006/05/lets_not_fund_quacks_in_our_nh.html) on the Grauniad's website recently.

[Mojo]

Is it, as I think, a field where scientists apply approaches from their own area of expertise? (e.g. physicists, psychologists, neuroscientists, historians etc).?

I think more usually it's a field where scientists apply approaches from other people's area of expertise. So many of the scientists who have delved into this area have assumed that their sterling work done in the area of, say, fluid dynamics, fully qualifies them to investigate controversial aspects of human behaviour. Or similarly, that their groundbreaking research into dual processing theories of memory has given them the necessary skills to wield vast chunks of hypersensitive electronics in a draughty old house.

Less multidisciplinary than kleptodisciplinary.

A few months ago we had a speaker at Skeptics in the Pub who was approaching it from the perspective of a theoretical physicist. He claimed to be a "theoretical paraphysicist", but kept running into the problem that he didn't have any decent observations to base any theories on.

see pages 5 & 6 of this thread (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php/topic,118.60.html).

[Admin]

I've been reading up on parapsychology as I didn't really know enough about it and I thought that it would be a worthwhile discipline as long as scientific principles are adhered to.

Not that I expect that evidence for psi is out there waiting to be found but that we could learn a lot about ourselves from studying people's experiences.

Although paranormalists often state upfront that they acknowledge the fact that nothing has been proved, they do seem to take the view that that's just because the evidence is hard to capture etc.

They believe these psi is real and all they have to do is find the evidence.

The more I read the less impressed I am. :(

[Dr B]

The lack of any repeatable effects certainly makes it somewhat unique among sciences ;D ;D

[asthmatic camel]

She's a colourful character...


Especially her hair! ;)

She had a splendid piece about homeopathy (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sue_blackmore/2006/05/lets_not_fund_quacks_in_our_nh.html) on the Grauniad's website recently.


Thanks, Mojo, missed that one; I'm more of a Torygraph man.

[Dr B]

so to summarise, the answer is 'no' to this thread?

[Mulder]

I was reading some parapsychology papers recently and two things struck me. Firstly, the method was not described in enough detail to determine what they did. Secondly, there was a speculative theory in the discussion that was vague and contradicted much current physics. And yet we were supposed to take it seriously after a poorly described experiment whose results were unimpressive.

This is why parapsychology is not taken seriously. There is STILL no general theory of psi to explain both its results and existing physics. Instead, there are lots of vague, untestable theories floating around, each with one or two supporters and none explaining BOTH the anomalous observations AND existing known laws. Until parapsychologists get their act together and come up with one realistic, testable theory, they will never get anywhere.

[Dr B]

I was reading some parapsychology papers recently and two things struck me. Firstly, the method was not described in enough detail to determine what they did. Secondly, there was a speculative theory in the discussion that was vague and contradicted much current physics. And yet we were supposed to take it seriously after a poorly described experiment whose results were unimpressive.

I agree and it reflects a lack of the proper scientific education. You can be as sharpe as a knife - but if you have no experience at writing peer-reviewed papers of high standard - then it is unlikely that you will be able to communicate those ideas effectively in the scientific domain.

I keep coming back to the point that para is theoretically and experimentally amputated from mainstream psychology / science.



This is why parapsychology is not taken seriously. There is STILL no general theory of psi to explain both its results and existing physics. Instead, there are lots of vague, untestable theories floating around, each with one or two supporters and none explaining BOTH the anomalous observations AND existing known laws. Until parapsychologists get their act together and come up with one realistic, testable theory, they will never get anywhere.

The problem is, what they call a theory and what science would recognise as one are totally different things....O0

[Croydon Bob]

so to summarise, the answer is 'no' to this thread?

I'm not sure.

Susan Blackmore was a parapsychologist, Richard Wiseman is one. Chris French denies that he is one but seems to do the same sort of stuff as Richard W. They are/were doing science, the work is robust. Doesn't that make parapsychology science?