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?
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.
That's "regressed" [snicker]Sure it's progressed: just not in the direction it wants to.
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.Originally Posted by Dr B
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.
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".
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.
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!No, eliminating alleged phenomena that don't exist is progress (and the progress they're making appears to be very consistent
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.
All sciences need positive results....or at least, all other than parapsychology...
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.
.
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/inde...ic,118.75.html
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. *
Last edited by dalriada; 31st July 2007 at 09:03 PM. Reason: * to praise Eris for Lamont & Wiseman....
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....
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!
Last edited by dalriada; 1st August 2007 at 11:25 PM. Reason: Just because- Okay?!
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks