The Problem with Parapsychology

[Dr B]

I think there is a fundamental problem with Parapsychology that has nothing to do with the object of study per-se (where other fundamental problems exist). I would be interested in the thoughts and suggestions of others on this.

Let me start with a tangent. I believe it is the case in the USA that for anyone to become a Philosopher of Science one has to train as a scientist first and do research before going into Philosophy (please correct me if this is wrong - but even if it is wrong it still works in the context of this debate). This means the individual has a good understanding of the practicalities, limitations, and insights of science. They appreciate the process of doing science. Along the way they are taught all that good scientists should be taught including, logic and reason, research methods, statistics, etc. I think this is a good method for any Philosopher of science. But what does it mean for Parapsychology?

Well, for me one of the fundamental problems of Parapsychology is that the 'scientists' are not very well trained in many areas (apologies for the generalisations and yes there are exceptions). Parapsychology is generally isolated from the mainstream - and yet there is no real need for this. I know many Parapsychology researchers who only read Parapsychology journals and only present and Parapsychology conferences. This leads to a limited community isolated from many ideas, methods, theories, concepts etc from elsewhere.

I think - and to return to the Philosophy example - that all future Parapsychologists should train and work as mainstream scientists first for a period of time before applying their expertise across. Now, this may well happen already in some cases - but it is not the norm (at least in the UK). Most Parapsychologists here never did psychology beyond undergraduate level (doing their PhDs in Parapsychology). I think doing a mainstream PhD and postdoctoral period in the mainstream should be a standard procedure. I just wondered what you all thought about this issue.

Do you agree that there is an issue with the standard of Parapsychological science (and hence Parapsychologists)? Would such training lead to a better quality Parapsychologist for the future (which is my assumption here)?

 

[JMA]

I believe it is the case in the USA that for anyone to become a Philosopher of Science one has to train as a scientist first and do research before going into Philosophy (please correct me if this is wrong - but even if it is wrong it still works in the context of this debate).

In my faculty in Belgium, it's not an obligation. You can do for exemple a master in philosophy, and then after that do a post-master degree in epistemology.

But on the other hand, it's clear that teachers will advice against doing that... And for a PhD, the teacher of (Philosophy of Science) in my faculty is a physicist, and all his PhD students have a master's degree in physics, and then do a master's degree in philosophy before starting the PhD.

But it's not a formal rule. It's just how it happens (because the teacher can choose who he wants to have has a PhD student).

As for parapsychology, I think you're right in theory, but practicaly it's just too many years...

Myself I studied psychology before philosophy (because one philosophy teacher told me that it is always better to do something else before studying philosophy). OK. That's great. But he took me 7 years (with some working at the same time)! I mean not everyone can do that.

And I'm not talking about doing a PhD... If you have to do a PhD in psychology before doing a PhD in parapsychology, man, you'll need a lifetime (and of course their is almost no grant for doing researchs in parpasychology)...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Richard Wiseman being an example.

~~ Paul

 

[tkingdoll]

Richard Wiseman being an example.

~~ Paul

An example of what?

 

[Cuddles]

The lack of expertise and scientific training isn't just the problem with parapsychology, it is the reason for parapsychology. If they actually knew what they were talking about they would know what a load of bollocks it is. It is only because they are (mostly) incapable of designing and/or running a controlled scientific experiment that they believe there is anything there to research at all. The few who are actually qualified in something relevant are almost all busy showing that there really is nothing there.

 

[tkingdoll]

The lack of expertise and scientific training isn't just the problem with parapsychology, it is the reason for parapsychology. If they actually knew what they were talking about they would know what a load of bollocks it is. It is only because they are (mostly) incapable of designing and/or running a controlled scientific experiment that they believe there is anything there to research at all. The few who are actually qualified in something relevant are almost all busy showing that there really is nothing there.

That's a whole lot of generalisations, there, and no actual substance. So you are saying that parapsychologists do not know what they are talking about? Who does, then? Skeptics? You?

When you say "it's a load of old bollocks", to what do you refer? The paranormal, or the field of parapsychology?

What is your evidence that parapsychologists "are (mostly) incapable of designing and/or running a controlled scientific experiment"? Are you sure it's not one or two exceptions like Sheldrake who allow sloppy standards, and that is colouring your judgement?

When you say that parapsychologists "believe there is anything there to research" you aren't accounting for the fact that so does a large proportion of the general public. Also, why else would any science exist if not for the notion that there is 'something there' to research? If you mean 'there is no such thing as the spirits of the dead haunting us', well, then what is it people are experiencing? What is wrong with trying to find an explanation?

I think what Dr B may be touching on, which is something I myself agree with, is that in order to be able to find an explanation for something which is not paranormal (the explanation), one needs to be educated in other sciences.

So another general question would be, are parapsychologists only looking for a paranormal explanation for phenomena? If the answer to that is yes, then I agree there's a problem.

 

[Cuddles]

You what? Are you feeling OK today? I said almost exactly what Dr B said, just slightly stronger, why are you arguing with me and agreeing with him in the same post?

 

[JMA]

The lack of expertise and scientific training isn't just the problem with parapsychology, it is the reason for parapsychology. If they actually knew what they were talking about they would know what a load of bollocks it is. It is only because they are (mostly) incapable of designing and/or running a controlled scientific experiment that they believe there is anything there to research at all. The few who are actually qualified in something relevant are almost all busy showing that there really is nothing there.

I'm a skeptic about parapsychology, but I think you're wrong.

I now a lot of people graduating in psychology who don't know how to design an experience properly or don't understand very well statistical analysis. Mostly because in psychology there is also a lot of training about psychotherapy (at least in Belgium).

Myself I learned a lot about designing an experiment reading skeptical litterature and a lot about statistical analysis reading "parapsychologists vs. skeptics debating". All that stuff you don't learn so well when you're doing a master in psychology...

I think that if you have a master's degree in psychology, and you read a article about parapsychology for the first time (without any prior knowledge in skepticism), you'll agree with his design and his conclusion.

 

[tkingdoll]

You what? Are you feeling OK today? I said almost exactly what Dr B said, just slightly stronger, why are you arguing with me and agreeing with him in the same post?

I only agree with one of his points, and that's on an 'if he's saying this then I agree' basis - but part of it is because I know Dr B's background and know he's qualified and experienced enough to have come up with his opinions based on some solid facts.

I know no such thing about why or how you arrived at your generalisations, which I don't think mirror Dr B's particularly anyway. They certainly don't serve to further the debate any, it's just you ranting.

 

[Cuddles]

I'm a skeptic about parapsychology, but I think you're wrong.

I now a lot of people graduating in psychology who don't know how to design an experience properly or don't understand very well statistical analysis. Mostly because in psychology there is also a lot of training about psychotherapy (at least in Belgium).

Myself I learned a lot about designing an experiment reading skeptical litterature and a lot about statistical analysis reading "parapsychologists vs. skeptics debating". All that stuff you don't learn so well when you're doing a master in psychology...

I think that if you have a master's degree in psychology, and you read a article about parapsychology for the first time (without any prior knowledge in skepticism), you'll agree with his design and his conclusion.

I wouldn't worry about what psychology graduates think, I would worry about what real scientists think. In the UK at least, psychology is turning in to a joke degree that anyone can take and pass. While I'm sure there are plenty of decent psychologists, asking a random psychology student what they think is hardly different from just asking a random off the street. Also, parapsychology is not really anything to do with psycology. Psychology is the study of the mind and mental states, but parapsychology claims to study physical effects on either the world or other people. This is the realm of physicists and neuroloists.

Since this isn't the only negative reply, possibly I have been misunderstood. Dr B said the (or at least a) problem with parapsychology is that most of the people involved are not trained as experimental scientists and are generally isolated from the rest of science. All I added to that is that parapsychology can only exist if this is the case. For example, take telekinesis. If someone can move objects with their mind we have a few problems, first there is the physics of what is causing the motion and how it is related to the human, then there are problems of biology, anatomy, neurology and so on to explain how the force is produced at all. There is no parapsychology at any point, there are only real scientific fields under which every part of any phenomenon can be placed. The only way parapsychology can exist at all is if the people involved don't understand that what they are looking at is a physics problem, or whatever. There simply is no such thing as parapsychology. This just leaves the few people who actually do know that they have a physics problem, and they generally spend their time pointing out that if you run the experiments properly there is nothing there.

The only way parapsychologists can justify their existance is by claiming that they are not trying to study these phenomena, they are simply trying to find out if they exist. This is just silly. When trying to find out if neutrons existed they didn't try to claim they had a new field called paraneutronology, they simply understood that it was a physics problem.

 

[Ersby]

The problem I think parapsychology has is that it has devised so many excuses for untoward results that it's pretty much unfalsifiable. Surely when they gave psi the characteristic of being "actively evasive" they had surrendered any hope of a replicable experiment.

It reminds me of a (hypothetical) experiment investigating whether Sod's Law exists or not: What can go wrong, will go wrong.

You devise and run an experiment and find that things that could go wrong did go wrong. Therefore you've demonstrated Sod's Law.

Or you devise an experiment which doesn't find that things go wrong. But that, in itself, is an example of something going wrong. Therefore you've demonstrated Sod's Law.

Parapsychology has so many caveats it can use, that it can perpetuate itself: discovering more "facets" of psi to explain certain results until they become untenable. By which time another protocol is the new hope of the field, and the same process starts again.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

An example of what?

An example of a real scientist doing some parapsychology.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Another problem with parapsychology is that the experiments are about the methodology and statistical results, not about any theory of psi. This means that the experiments are at the utter mercy of the correctness and consistency of the methodology and analysis. This is a bad state of affairs.

~~ Paul

 

[tkingdoll]

An example of a real scientist doing some parapsychology.

~~ Paul

Not a parapsychologist doing real science?

 

[JMA]

I wouldn't worry about what psychology graduates think, I would worry about what real scientists think.

I find that insulting. Psychology is a real science. And of course it's quite insulting from a pedagogical stand-point (university should teach proper methodology and critical thinking. Not worring about that... well that makes me worring...).

I can tell you about a bunch of phycisists in France who wrote books about UFO using MHD (Magnetohydrodynamics) engine as propulsion system. I suppose you just dissmised that by saying: even it those people do have PhD degrees and publish scientific papers, they are not real scientists...

Well then, it's just plain stupid.

It's not because someone don't agree with you that he is not a scientist...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Not a parapsychologist doing real science?

Indeed, but I was addressing Dr. B's opening post. Wiseman is a real scientist doing parapsychology.

An example of a real scientist doing real parapsychology as real science.

~~ Paul

 

[Dr B]

As for parapsychology, I think you're right in theory, but practicaly it's just too many years...

Myself I studied psychology before philosophy (because one philosophy teacher told me that it is always better to do something else before studying philosophy). OK. That's great. But he took me 7 years (with some working at the same time)! I mean not everyone can do that.

And I'm not talking about doing a PhD... If you have to do a PhD in psychology before doing a PhD in parapsychology, man, you'll need a lifetime (and of course their is almost no grant for doing researchs in parpasychology)...

I was just talking about doing a standard undergrad in science / psychology then a PhD in the same. After some post-docs just apply your expertise to your parapsychological interests. I was not meaning that anyone then go on and do a further PhD in parapsychology - there would be no need with the expertise gained through the mainstream and the experience gained through the post-doc period.

 

[Dr B]

I now a lot of people graduating in psychology who don't know how to design an experience properly or don't understand very well statistical analysis.

Thats Belgium Psychology for you - I have students and friends from your part of the world and they all come and work with us because they claim empirical and experimental psychology is non-existant where they are from (also no funding). It seems to be more philosophical as I understand.

However, you are quite wrong to assume that all psychology is taught in that way. In the UK and I am sure the USA its quite different. You simply cannot graduate with a good degree in psychology in the UK without having a good grasp of experimental design, statistics, theory, methods, logic, etc.

In my old department where i studied Psychology as an undergrad it was at least 75% statistics and research methods. It also had a reputation for one of the highest drop-out rates because people would apply thinking its all 'fluffy' and then find out within weeks they need to know about distributions, z-scores and z-tests, null hypothesis testing, and so on.......nothing to do with sitting on a couch and telling anyone about your childhood

Myself I learned a lot about designing an experiment reading skeptical litterature and a lot about statistical analysis reading "parapsychologists vs. skeptics debating". All that stuff you don't learn so well when you're doing a master in psychology...

Not quite - you will have to learn all that at a top UK psychology department at undergraduate level just to get a low 2:1 grade, never mind a high 2:1 or first-class. Sounds to me like your friends are at really poor university departments.

I think that if you have a master's degree in psychology, and you read a article about parapsychology for the first time (without any prior knowledge in skepticism), you'll agree with his design and his conclusion.

I disagree for all the reasons above - this is a sweeping statement based on how, what is really experimental philosophy, is taught in Belgium. Its totally different over here my friend.

People were kicked off my degree in the first term of the first year for not passing stats exams. The tutors logic was - if you dont pass at this level....you will posiviely **** yourself in the second year....and they were right....

When i went to do my PhD I stayed in postgrad shared accomodation for a while. I got tired of teaching Biology students and Toxicology students how to do stats and design an experiment. They were doing an MSc and just learning what we did in the first / second year of our undergrad. This made me realise that I had been taught quite well and i am thankful the Uni I went to had an excellent reputation for empirical science.

 

[Dr B]

Indeed, but I was addressing Dr. B's opening post. Wiseman is a real scientist doing parapsychology.

An example of a real scientist doing real parapsychology as real science.

~~ Paul

Wiseman has a PhD in parapsychology (he is not a mainstream psychologist) -though i agree he does some interesting work (though i find it psychologically speaking - theoretically thin at times). Nontheless a good guy and researcher doing good work.

 

[JMA]

xx