Is parapsychology a pseudoscience?

[Stray Cat]

Bad logic. If somebody has taken a scientific article on his website and although there are flaws in some other articles there, that has not deteriorated the original scientific article. Its value is in its content.

The comment wasn't saying anything about the veracity of the article but pointing out that it was only published on that website because it agrees with the PoV of the website's editors. The website is dedicated to whingeing about sceptics and the article fits perfectly in that subject matter as it is a whinge against sceptics.

Extremely well criticized? You did not read the examples she gave?

Where in anything I've written have I even implied that sceptics don't always 'criticise' well? Of course she can give some bad examples of criticism. It's just a shame she chooses to pick holes in the criticism instead of finding ways for the researchers who did the original work to utilise better methodology. Maybe starting with something more along the lines of the scientific method (making a scientific hypothesis and then falsifying it) instead of noticing some anomalous data and claiming "wow that's paranormal" before moving on to the next bit of anomalous data they can concoct.

There exist innumerable more similar examples. I have found them myself in big quantities, checking the original parapsycological research. Choosing of the facts, coloring of the facts and even outright lies.

Yes I'm sure that is the case. However all this is just a distraction from the real point; Parapsychology has never falsified any posited hypothesis that shows paranormal events to exist. Whether a critic points out that there is an erroneous contraction of the statistical data or that the researcher's mum smells doesn't lessen the ineffectiveness of the research one jot.
I too can find many examples of parapsychology that feature great wads of "choosing facts", "colouring of the facts" and yes "even outright lies".
But this isn't a "my dad's bigger than yours" competition. Like I already said, after over 150 years, parapsychology hasn't contributed anything useful to science. It has however contributed a lot of baloney to the credulous and promoted a lot of hoaxes, fakes and charlatans.

Again much like in the world of UFOlogists, until the various organisations start to do a better job of distancing themselves from hoaxers, fakes and charlatans and being a lot more critical of their own methods instead of retaining the same credulity and not learning from past mistakes, they will continue to face criticism and not all of that criticism will be 100% perfect.

Unfortunately skeptics have believed everything without critical thinking.

Says the guy who believed a photo of a girl jumping off a bed was proof of levitation.

A few links, please. I suspect you are not making difference between parapsychology and New Age. The websites called "paranormal" are normally NA websites.

And the websites called the Scotsman are not true Scotsmen either?
I don't have any links, I read them last year and they weren't worth bookmarking. If you read what I actually wrote, you'll notice I didn't mention parapsychologists were doing this, but only "woos". It doesn't matter if they were New Agers or any other flavour of woo, the point was that "we don't understand this yet = paranormal stuff" is the overall theory of parapsychology and new age woo.

Thousandth of a second? What article do you mean? The Radin article I gave as a link (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_2_radin.pdf) measured for example electrodermal activity (EDA). The maximum of the anticipating difference was at 1 second and the effect began at 3 seconds before the picture was seen. A robust measuring system and in the literature there are several experiments showing the same effect. In my opinion that ought to be evidence.

I don't know what you (or Radin) thinks it's evidence of. Perhaps a real hypothesis that is falsifiable would help in that regard. But Radin only seems interested in finding anomalies and calling them "paranormal" then moving on to the next new toy, and not in the slightest interested in following through scientifically to discover what's really going on.

I admit I exaggerated the examples. But still the point is valid, from flying mediums spewing out ectoplasm to minute effects only apparent in statistical analysis (usually meta analysis) in 150 years.

While in the same time frame, science has gone from minute knowledge to flying machines spewing out sensors that can detect minute atmospheric effects.

 

[DoomMetal]

Lusikka what do you have to say about this?

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an effort to document the existence of psi. If psi exists, it occurs in the brain, and hence, assessing the brain directly should be more sensitive than using indirect behavioral methods (as have been used previously). To increase sensitivity, this experiment was designed to produce positive results if telepathy, clairvoyance (i.e., direct sensing of remote events), or precognition (i.e., knowing future events) exist. Moreover, the study included biologically or emotionally related participants (e.g., twins) and emotional stimuli in an effort to maximize experimental conditions that are purportedly conducive to psi. In spite of these characteristics of the study, psi stimuli and non-psi stimuli evoked indistinguishable neuronal responses-although differences in stimulus arousal values of the same stimuli had the expected effects on patterns of brain activation. These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena.

Moulton, S. T., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2008). Using neuroimaging to resolve the psi debate. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 182-192.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~moulton/Moulton_Kosslyn_2008_Neuroimaging_Psi.pdf

 

[fuelair]

How many clocks in hospitals stop when someone dies at one?

And, is it more than the number when the person dies at some other hour?

 

[BobR]

Just a thought. Perhaps he was watching her eye movements and realized what she was planing. I can comment on anything else that took place.

That's an entirely plausible explanation, which is one of the reasons I suggested the card experiment.

 

[BobR]

Lusikka what do you have to say about this?

Inconclusive. The assumption that psi must occur in the brain to exist is debatable, based as it is on the assumption that mind doesn't exist without the brain. If this were absolutely so, it would be proof that the mind ceases to exist at death. I remain skeptical of any assertion of proof one way or the other about whether we exist after death or not. The conclusion that the experimental results provide any sort of evidence whatsoever on the existence of psi is based on this debatable assumption. The conclusion is therefore unfounded.

 

[Steve001]

That's an entirely plausible explanation, which is one of the reasons I suggested the card experiment.

Inconclusive. The assumption that psi must occur in the brain to exist is debatable, based as it is on the assumption that mind doesn't exist without the brain. If this were absolutely so, it would be proof that the mind ceases to exist at death. I remain skeptical of any assertion of proof one way or the other about whether we exist after death or not.

Are you proposing that psi is floating somewhere within the aether?
Without a brain how would psi happen? That is a reasonable assumption. Let's suppose for a moment there is a psi field analogous to an EM field. Without some electronic device like radio, there's no way to actuate this EM field and by implication no way to actuate this psi field without a brain.
So, for all practical reasons psi would have to occur within the brain.
You may want to listen to this before entertaining seriously the mind and brain are separate and that the mind too may be floating out in the aether.
Decoding 'the Most Complex Object in the Universe'

The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.


http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/06/14/2013/decoding-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe.html

 

[The Norseman]

Inconclusive. The assumption that psi must occur in the brain to exist is debatable, based as it is on the assumption that mind doesn't exist without the brain. If this were absolutely so, it would be proof that the mind ceases to exist at death. I remain skeptical of any assertion of proof one way or the other about whether we exist after death or not. The conclusion that the experimental results provide any sort of evidence whatsoever on the existence of psi is based on this debatable assumption. The conclusion is therefore unfounded.

This is why definitions are of paramount importance. We need to know what to test and how to tell if it exists.

I think the null hypothesis is the only rational position; psi isn't a thing until it's defined and researched.

One person could posit that psi exists solely in the brain and fMRI tests would either prove or disprove that. Others almost invariably try and define psi to be undetectable, similar to gods. Undetectable yet identifiable and even (some say) controllable.

 

[BobR]

Are you proposing that psi is floating somewhere within the aether?

No, I surely ain't. I assert only that the so-called evidence for the nonexistence of psi isn't anything of the kind; I do not propose that it exists. I have no evidence for such a proposal, and therefore remain skeptical of its existence.

Without a brain how would psi happen?

I have no idea.

That is a reasonable assumption.

Most scientific errors have their basis in reasonable assumptions. Theories are generally overturned because new evidence shows that heretofore-reasonable assumptions are not as reasonable as they seemed.

Let's suppose for a moment there is a psi field analogous to an EM field.

Since we're doing that, let's also suppose that there's one that isn't.

You may want to listen to this before entertaining seriously the mind and brain are separate...

If I ever do entertain myself thus seriously, I shall accept that invitation. Until then, I shall simply say that there is no evidence that a mental phenomenon must generate analogs in the brain that are physically quantifiable. There is only a "reasonable assumption." As such, any attempt to refute the existence of any postulated mental phenomenon by proving that such a phenomenon does not generate such analogs is inherently spurious.

 

[Steve001]

No, I surely ain't. I assert only that the so-called evidence for the nonexistence of psi isn't anything of the kind; I do not propose that it exists. I have no evidence for such a proposal, and therefore remain skeptical of its existence.
I have no idea.
Most scientific errors have their basis in reasonable assumptions. Theories are generally overturned because new evidence shows that heretofore-reasonable assumptions are not as reasonable as they seemed.
Since we're doing that, let's also suppose that there's one that isn't.
If I ever do entertain myself thus seriously, I shall accept that invitation. Until then, I shall simply say that there is no evidence that a mental phenomenon must generate analogs in the brain that are physically quantifiable. There is only a "reasonable assumption." As such, any attempt to refute the existence of any postulated mental phenomenon by proving that such a phenomenon does not generate such analogs is inherently spurious.

You have to argue it's not a reasonable assumption based upon what we know now which you've not done regardless of what may become true in the future.

Are you certain there's no evidence?
Researchers identify emotions based on brain activity http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-0...sed-brain.html

Scientists create way to see structures that store memories in living brain http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-0...ies-brain.html
And yet, people do refuse and refute there are physical correlations between brain activity and forms of mental experience. Those people believe consciousness is non-local [ residing outside the brain] in other words the brain is merely a filter and reciever of consciousness.
You may take up lurking at Skeptiko to see what I mean. Have you read the book War of the World Views? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Worldviews

 

[Lusikka]

The comment wasn't saying anything about the veracity of the article but pointing out that it was only published on that website because it agrees with the PoV of the website's editors. The website is dedicated to whingeing about sceptics and the article fits perfectly in that subject matter as it is a whinge against sceptics.

You are right, and especially it was a part of your strategy to make the article suspect. Using the word "whingeing" reveals how deeply emotionally you are engaged in current skepticism.

Where in anything I've written have I even implied that sceptics don't always 'criticise' well? Of course she can give some bad examples of criticism. It's just a shame she chooses to pick holes in the criticism instead of finding ways for the researchers who did the original work to utilise better methodology. Maybe starting with something more along the lines of the scientific method (making a scientific hypothesis and then falsifying it) instead of noticing some anomalous data and claiming "wow that's paranormal" before moving on to the next bit of anomalous data they can concoct.

… Parapsychology has never falsified any posited hypothesis that shows paranormal events to exist. Whether a critic points out that there is an erroneous contraction of the statistical data or that the researcher's mum smells doesn't lessen the ineffectiveness of the research one jot.

Unfortunately there are only hypotheses concerning loose psychological and situational correlations that predict the results of most experiments. Psi is uncontrollable, and therefore single random results don't falsify those hypotheses. Occasionally there can be also very strong and clearly observable physical phenomena in spontaneous cases.

For most parapsychologists psi is a neutral, empty term without other meaning than unexplained. Parapsychology is working without a strong theory, but it is bad logic to think that it means psi is impossible.

Says the guy who believed a photo of a girl jumping off a bed was proof of levitation.

I think you are not capable to understand what I "believe".

My principle is always to follow the evidence, wherever it may lead. That means: not to have so strong preconceived beliefs that one is not able to change one's opinion if the evidence requires that. A not so common attitude, as I have found on the discussion forums. And following the evidence does not mean it is believed without critical thinking.

My hypothesis was that one could detect the levitation from the photos taken in known intervals, and that is a realistic hypothesis. In the beginning I thought that the photos seemed to show the levitation. But then it became clear that my photos were not from the same series of photos and that falsified my hypothesis concerning that series. You can check that I let the evidence lead and abandoned that series of the photos. But the possibility to show the levitation remains open. Unfortunately parapsychologists are mostly scholars and did not notice that possibility in time.

Originally Posted by Lusikka:
A few links, please. I suspect you are not making difference between parapsychology and New Age. The websites called "paranormal" are normally NA websites.

And the websites called the Scotsman are not true Scotsmen either?

Not necessarily. It would be best to apply critical thinking always and everywhere.

I don't know what you (or Radin) thinks it's evidence of. Perhaps a real hypothesis that is falsifiable would help in that regard. But Radin only seems interested in finding anomalies and calling them "paranormal" then moving on to the next new toy, and not in the slightest interested in following through scientifically to discover what's really going on.

I don't like Radin's thinking very much, but he has somewhere told this moving on is a question of living. He must do that work where it is possible to get funding. And by the way, are these anomalies not interesting? You are ignoring observations and only requiring falsifiable hypotheses?

 

[Aepervius]

Inconclusive. The assumption that psi must occur in the brain to exist is debatable, based as it is on the assumption that mind doesn't exist without the brain. If this were absolutely so, it would be proof that the mind ceases to exist at death. I remain skeptical of any assertion of proof one way or the other about whether we exist after death or not. The conclusion that the experimental results provide any sort of evidence whatsoever on the existence of psi is based on this debatable assumption. The conclusion is therefore unfounded.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

the Null hypothesis is that all conscious thought are originating in the brain. And the null hypothesis is that the conscious thought die and disappear forever when the supporting physical organs (the brain) dies.

If you have alternative explanation to offer, feel free to bring evidence for them. Until then we do not have to take into account *every* myth made up on life and thought on the table.

Therefore the conclusion, in conjunction with the null is perfectely reasonable, until falsification and evidence to the contrary is brought up. Until then your objection is invalid, as invalid as rejecting quantum physic because the unicorn hypothesis and pixy dust phlogiston was not rejected.

 

[DoomMetal]

The problem is that "psi" remains undefined. All parapsychologists can tell us is that it is "non-physical". They appear to lump various "paranormal" phenomena into this category, and some of these things if they exist obviously do not operate by exactly the same mechanism. For example psychokinesis, telepathy and precognition if they exist are all very different.

And yes I have read about all kinds of mechanisms for the supposed existence of psi including "mental fields" or "psi particles" etc.., all nice ideas but not empirical science. There is no theory for psi, and most of the hypotheses presented have not been testable.

Here are a few definitions of psi and related comments of interest:

Psi: A neutral term for parapsychological phenomena, inclusive of both ESP and mind-matter interaction. Psi, psychic, and psychical are synonyms.

http://archived.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html

A general blanket term, proposed by B. P. Wiesner and seconded by R. H. Thouless (1942), and used either as a noun or adjective to identify paranormal processes and paranormal causation; the two main categories of psi are psi-gamma (paranormal cognition; extrasensory perception) and psi-kappa (paranormal action; psychokinesis), although the purpose of the term “psi” is to suggest that they might simply be different aspects of a single process, rather than distinct and essentially different processes. Strictly speaking “psi” also applies to survival of death. Some thinkers prefer to use “psi” as a purely descriptive term for anomalous outcomes, as suggested by Palmer (1986, p. l39), who defines it as “a correspondence between the cognitive or physiological activity of an organism and events in its external environment that is anomalous with respect to generally accepted basic limiting principles of nature such as those articulated by C. D. Broad.” [From the Greek, psi, twenty-third letter of the Greek alphabet; from the Greek psyche, “mind, soul”]

http://archived.parapsych.org/glossary_l_r.html#p

The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer, processes such as telepathy or other forms of extrasensory perception that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms. The term is purely descriptive: It neither implies that such anomalous phenomena are paranormal nor connotes anything about their underlying mechanisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psi_(parapsychology)

Because we don't know the boundaries of what psi is or isn't, it becomes very difficult to say when we have it and when we don't. I would say that we might define psi as some type of information exchange that is obtained without aid of the known senses.

Betty Shapin, Lisette Coly in The Repeatability problem in parapsychology proceedings of an international conference held in San Antonio, Texas, October 28-29, 1983.

Parapsychologists need to be able to provide a positive definition of psi, to tell us how to identify psi 'anomalies' in ways other than exclusion, and to tell us how to rule out psi, how to know when it is absent. This problem is as great now as it has ever been, and no progress has been made in overcoming it across more than a century of empirical parapsychological research. Because of its negative definition, we are left with no idea as to when psi might occur, and more importantly to the scientist, as to when it will not occur. There is no way, we are told, that psi can be blocked or attenuated by the researcher, and thus we cannot compare conditions where psi could not occur to those where, were it to exist, it could be observed. Moreover, because it is claimed that psi influences can occur without any attenuation as a function of distance, and can occur backwards and forwards in time, it becomes impossible ever to truly 'control' the conditions of an experiment.

James E. Alcock, Jean E. Burns, Anthony Freeman in Psi Wars: Getting to Grips With the Paranormal.

I think that is the problem with parapsychology, and it is a problem that starts from the very hypothesis of psi. The structure and definitions of parapsychology are to blame. The negative definition of psi, the hundred years of bolstering failing theories, and the powerful will to find something are at fault. They not only force us to ask, "Does psi exist?" but force us to answer in terms of belief. Where there is no rational and convincing answer, belief takes over, and that is why there are two sides, and such misunderstanding.

In the end I think my negative results told me that the psi hypothesis leads only to unrepeatability (Blackmore 1985). It forces us to ask ever more boring questions, culminating in the question "Does psi exist?" and to that question there is no obviously right answer. Where there is no right answer, we are in ignorance; and, where we are in ignorance, we should do only one thing—have an open mind. But that is too difficult. After all these years of research, I can only conclude that I don’t know which is more elusive—psi or an open mind.

The Elusive Open Mind: Ten Years of Negative Research in Parapsychology by Susan Blackmore http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si87.html

Come to think of it, I feel slightly sad. It was just over thirty years ago that I had the dramatic out-of-body experience that convinced me of the reality of psychic phenomena and launched me on a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end. Just a few years of careful experiments changed all that. I found no psychic phenomena - only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud. I became a sceptic.

Susan Blackmore http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html

 

[DoomMetal]

A very critical paper into psi:

Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance: Reasons to Remain Doubtful about the Existence of Psi by James E. Alcock

http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf