This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 22, Issue 2, from 2012.
Parapsychology has long had its critics. Indeed, in my presidential address to the Parapsychological Association I argued that critics (whether situated within or outside the discipline) play a vital role for the field in helping to tighten up methodology (Watt, 2005). I deliberately avoid the term ‘sceptic’ since that simply refers to taking a questioning stance, which we should all be routinely doing as scientists. James Alcock’s (2003) critique, though itself containing some overly sweeping statements, nevertheless makes some quite devastating points and is essential reading for students of parapsychology. Other well-informed critics, such as our two preceding authors, deserve praise for making strenuous efforts to engage deeply with the field’s published literature and its researchers (Hyman & Honorton, 1986), and for rolling up their sleeves and actually collecting data in collaboration with parapsychologists, for example to explore topics such as the effects of the experimenter’s psi belief on study outcome (Schlitz, Wiseman, Watt & Radin, 2006).
I am already on record as agreeing with some of the critical points reiterated by Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman, particularly about the need to focus on the most promising paradigms, and to conduct prospective meta-analyses (Watt, 2005). However, without making too many excuses, I think we need to remind ourselves of a few features of parapsychology as a field of enquiry that make it difficult to reach closure on the psi question. There are probably fewer than 100 researchers world-wide who are actively engaged in psi research. Of these, many – like me – will spend a proportion of their limited resources on the psi question, but will also be engaged in broader research into paranormal experiences and beliefs (e.g., Watt, Watson & Wilson, 2007). They feel the broader research is important because of the wide public prevalence of these experiences and beliefs, and they feel that the psi hypothesis is not the sole interesting question to be asked (though it may be the most revolutionary one from a theoretical point of view). For example, in 2008 at the main gathering for research-active parapsychologists, the Annual International Convention of the Parapsychological Association, only 10 out of 22 full papers (i.e., 45%) presented new data testing the psi hypothesis. If we look at it purely as a numbers game, it would be surprising if much could be learned about the possible existence and nature of psi under these circumstances. Since it’s unlikely that the field will attract more resources without persuasive evidence for psi, we find ourselves in a Catch-22 situation. I think the only way out is for the field to be more systematic and organized in how it tests the psi hypothesis. However, this would require individuals to give up pet theories and cherished paradigms, and sociological rather than scientific factors might hinder this kind of organized effort.
Particularly in the UK and Continental Europe, ‘doing parapsychology’ is increasingly becoming integrated with mainstream academia rather than being an activity that is pursued at independent (and often isolated) private research institutions. While in many ways parapsychologists are satisfied in achieving their goal of integration, it comes at a cost because these researchers are also coping with the heavy teaching and administrative loads that are part and parcel of modern academic life. Like their academic colleagues, unless they can bring in funding to buy themselves out of these duties, they struggle to find the time to conduct research. Catch-22 again! So, while critics may bemoan parapsychology’s lack of productivity regarding the psi question, we should remember that this may in part be due to hindrances to activity on this question.
Ray Hyman introduces us to ‘neoparapsychologists’, and although I recognize the gist of their ideas in his portrayal, I disagree that all proponents of this view of psi are stating that the nature of psi is such that it cannot be tested in a scientific manner. I am not an expert on their claims but my understanding is that there are different shades to the neoparapsychologists’ argument. Some theoretical standpoints hold that in controlled laboratory testing psi cannot be observed in the usual manner, such as repeatedly looking for a main predicted effect, but that testable predictions can be made. Because this is a relatively recent development, neoparapsychologists are currently developing answers to the question of how to apply this model of psi to data gathered in the laboratory. For example, rather than look for a main psi effect, one suggestion is to design the experiment to include a number of psychological and physical variables so that a correlation matrix can be produced. The psi effect is expected to manifest in the number and strength of correlations between these variables, while the null hypothesis is represented by the number of significant correlations expected by chance. The exact pattern of extra-chance correlations is not expected to replicate in subsequent experiments, but their number and strength is expected to replicate if the experimental conditions are the same (Lucadou, Römer & Walach, 2007). Outside the lab, testable predictions have also been made concerning how reports of spontaneous ostensibly paranormal phenomena would be affected by various manipulations under the neoparapsychological model of psi (Lucadou & Zahradnik, 2004). So, while it’s not easy being in parapsychology, I wouldn’t call for the undertakers just yet.
