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...:p).

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... :p

[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. :D

~~ 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 :eek:


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....:boggled:

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. :D

~~ 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

[JMA]

However, you are quite wrong to assume that all psychology is taught in that way.

I don't assume that at all because I did an Erasmus training period in Scotland, and I saw there by myself that the french-speaking (Belgium and France) way of doing things are quite different that the english way (UK and the US).

One of the many reasons is the importance of psychoanalysis (and especially Jacque Lacan) in France...

And know we have postmodernim thinking (espacially in sociology)... We are really doomed. You don't know the luck you have... :(

[RichardR]

From Ray Hyman (http://www.csicop.org/si/9405/lilienfeld.html):

Seemingly promising and potentially exciting effects using a novel experimental paradigm are reported, only to fizzle out upon closer scrutiny. Each round of replication failures engenders a brief period of disillusionment and disenchantment, which sets the stage for concerted attempts to find a new and improved paradigm.

Eventually, positive findings using yet another novel paradigm are reported, followed by another round of replication failures, and so on. And that's the problem. Real science builds upon what has been learned before. Parapsychology ignores the failures of before and either repeats the mistakes or invents yet another new "paradigm".

[tkingdoll]

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.

Technically it's a Psychology PhD in parapsychology, akshewlly.

[Dr B]

Technically it's a Psychology PhD in parapsychology, akshewlly.

Semantics? It's a PhD in Parapsychology as far as I am aware (even Wiseman has called it that in the past i think - though he may have changed that now :) ). That does not mean it uses parapsychological interpretations. However, it does not make it Psychology either - because most PhDs in this area (and this is a sweeping statement but one not without some evidence, and is not directed at any one person) are limited to only considering parapsychological interpretations and a null hypothesis or perhaps one psychological alternative. In the mainstream you have to consider a wider scope of possibilities because many more have been proposed and evidenced to some degree.

As doing a PhD is more than just producing a theory I doubt I would agree with your repackaging of what is in reality a Parapsychology PhD.

On a side issue - I saw two Parapsychology PhDs the other week and read through them - there was hardly any psychology in them at all and no real resulting theory. They both read like exercises in statistics and the dedabtes in both were really ones of statistics, baselines, and sensory leakage. All important stuff to a some level, but in the mainstream things are different. This is perhaps one reason why a PhD in parapsychology cannot be repackaged in that way. Just my views of course ;)

[Ersby]

On a side issue - I saw two Parapsychology PhDs the other week and read through them - there was hardly any psychology in them at all and no real resulting theory.
That sounds interesting. Where you acting as a reviewer? If so, I guess you can't give too many details, but were there any particularly good results? What protocol did they use?

[Dr B]

That sounds interesting. Where you acting as a reviewer? If so, I guess you can't give too many details, but were there any particularly good results? What protocol did they use?


I cannot comment too much on this. They were well written, nice, & clear. However, only one reported a significant effect (thats one effect from the entire PhD) and they failed to replicate that later in the PhD. The other failed to find any effects and was one long attempt to intepret null effects (:boggled: ). I sympathise with the researcher in question - it was not their fault. ;)

However, what struck me was the lack of psychology and theory in both. They tended to read like a 'research methods' textbook. I think some parapsychologists think they only need to concentrate on methodology. Of course it is absolutely crucial, but some ideas, reasoning, and theory go a long way as well. Thats the only point I wanted to make on that ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Semantics? It's a PhD in Parapsychology as far as I am aware (even Wiseman has called it that in the past i think - though he may have changed that now ).
His bio says "He then obtained a first class honours degree in Psychology from University College London and a doctorate in psychology from the University of Edinburgh." The Wiki article concurs. We need to see his diplomas, I guess.

~~ Paul

[Dr B]

His bio says "He then obtained a first class honours degree in Psychology from University College London and a doctorate in psychology from the University of Edinburgh." The Wiki article concurs. We need to see his diplomas, I guess.

~~ Paul

His bio written by him? :D Only Kidding.....Wiseman studied, unless I am mistaken, at the Koestler chair, which is the main Parapsychology department in the country. It is part of, though separate from the main psychology department. I think the topic was also parapsychology (PSI).

However, this is getting somewhat off-tangent from the OP. I wanted to see what people thought about the way parapsychologists are trained, whether this explains many controversies and poor studies, and how we could improve it for the future. Obviously there are very good parapsychologists out there - and Richard is definately one of them - without doubt. But exceptions do not prove rules - and I know richard, like myself, has received some hostile interactions from parapsychologists who see us as 'nasty skeptics who need to open their minds' :D

On the whole we have had some good scientists in this country researching this area, Richard, Chris French, Sue Blackmore (now retired). But, as stated above, these people are exceptions to the rule. If you read any of the major parapsychology journals - it is easy to see skeptical interpretations and indeed good psychological ones, are like hens teeth....rare if any...:D

[Greatest I am]

We all know that strange things happen now and then to some of us.
The problem arrises when we try to duplicate these things in a controled setting. All that is required is one person in the world who can replicate his skill at will.

The fact that after all this time of searching and we still do not have a candidate to win the prize, indicates strongly that the ability to replicate these skills does not exist.

Even those who have demonstrated on occasion that they can do these strange feats are lothe to do it consistently.

If Randy would accept lie detector evidence, Ibelieve he would have had already issued the prize because these things do hapen, just not on demand.
Same with re rest of us, if we saw proofvia a lie detector.

This would at least make us look more closely at claims made and message given.

This would certainly make the delivering of message easier on people like me who have had actual telepathic experiences and who so want to be believed.
Life should be so easy.

Basically any psychic who can reproduce on call will make a hero out of whichever investigator he chose to work with.
Lets hope it's Randy.

Regards
DL

[The_Fire]

We all know that strange things happen now and then to some of us.
The problem arrises when we try to duplicate these things in a controled setting. All that is required is one person in the world who can replicate his skill at will.


On multiple occasions. Just replicating it once wont prove it's more than a coincidence.


The fact that after all this time of searching and we still do not have a candidate to win the prize, indicates strongly that the ability to replicate these skills does not exist.


More than strongly. Fact is that NOONE have been able to present ANY kind of evidence that there is something paranormal happening.



Even those who have demonstrated on occasion that they can do these strange feats are lothe to do it consistently.


Probably because they are...how do I say this politely?......FRAUDS?.
There have, to this day, not been one incidence of socalled paranormal activity which have not turned out to be:
1: Fraud
2: Deception
3: Natural event
4: Magicians trick
5: A hysteric minds misconception of the above
6: A believing minds grasp at evidence where none exists
ETA:
7: Mental illness

If Randy would accept lie detector evidence, Ibelieve he would have had already issued the prize because these things do hapen, just not on demand.
Same with re rest of us, if we saw proofvia a lie detector.


No. I would not believe a lie detector. Lie detectors can be misled/cheated which is why the court doesn't allow them as evidence.
A lie detector measure the physical reaction to questions such as pulse rates, breathing and muscle activity. These reaction can be controlled through rehearsal, meditation or simply believing in something the moment you say it. It does not mean that something actually happened.


This would at least make us look more closely at claims made and message given.


So far I've seen no messages. Only....well here I go again....FRAUD or selfdeception.


This would certainly make the delivering of message easier on people like me who have had actual telepathic experiences and who so want to be believed.
Life should be so easy.


You may believe you have had a telepathic experience, and with God of all beings, but in reality you were probably talking to yourself.
Tell me, what did God say to you?


Basically any psychic who can reproduce on call will make a hero out of whichever investigator he chose to work with.
Lets hope it's Randy.
Regards
DL


And thats why the million dollar challenge exists. To find out if the paranormal exists. So far, there's been nothing but disappointment.

[Greatest I am]

Thanks for the note.
Telepathy is a reality. It's possible that only those who have experienced it will ever believe it. I hope this does not also apply to God.
Regards
DL

[Dr B]

We all know that strange things happen now and then to some of us.
The problem arrises when we try to duplicate these things in a controled setting. All that is required is one person in the world who can replicate his skill at will.

But the real quesiton is why its so difficult to duplicate - when all these self-claimed psychics seem to be able to do it at will on TV? I would have thought that being in front of a studio and national audience was far more off putting than being in a private quiet lab with some scientists. On that basis your logic does not stand up.


The fact that after all this time of searching and we still do not have a candidate to win the prize, indicates strongly that the ability to replicate these skills does not exist.

So are all the psychics on TV lying then? :D I would suggest they are but for different reason.



Even those who have demonstrated on occasion that they can do these strange feats are lothe to do it consistently.

No - they cant do it consistently - it has nothing to do with choice as I can see.


If Randy would accept lie detector evidence, Ibelieve he would have had already issued the prize because these things do hapen, just not on demand.
Same with re rest of us, if we saw proofvia a lie detector. This would at least make us look more closely at claims made and message given.

This is a serious error related to the confidence you place in lie detection. Most politicians can pass a lie detector when blatantly lying. Lie detection is not a science. Both the polygrapgh and neuro-based systems are riddled with assumptions and error. They might be useful only under certain circumstances.

[Dr B]

note to moderator - please remove this post (was a duplicate)

[Humphreys]

We all know that strange things happen now and then to some of us.
The problem arrises when we try to duplicate these things in a controled setting. All that is required is one person in the world who can replicate his skill at will.

Can you give an example of the kind of strange things you are talking about?

Are these things completely impossible things based on our current knowledge, or just highly unlikely events and coincidences?

In the first case, how do you rule out hallucination, and in the second case, how do you rule out chance? Have you worked out that these strange occurrences that are probabilistically very unlikely occur more often than chance would suggest? If so, how?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The problem with parapsychology is that the experiments are about the protocol and statistical analysis, not about any theory of psi. This makes the results completely dependent on the goodness of the protocol and accuracy of the analysis.

An example is Wiseman and Schlitz's staring experiments. Using the same protocol and analysis, they got opposite results. This contributed to the whole concept of the experimenter effect; it was almost the poster boy for the experimenter effect. Then in a third attempt at replication, they got the same results: nothing. Why? Is there anything in the "Theory of Psi" that can explain this? No. So we just scratch our heads and wonder if it's worth spending the money for a fourth study.

~~ Paul

[Spektator]

Ooh! Ooh! I have actual anecdotal evidence that lie detectors are unreliable!

I once worked for an employer who wanted all his employees to take polygraph tests to insure that we would not betray his trade secrets to any of his competitors (he was a touch paranoid). At who knows what expense, he brought in a professional polygraph operator who had done work for law-enforcement agencies, etc., to test us. Naturally, the employees who got tested first talked about the experience. One of them mentioned that before the test started, the polygraph operator showed how valid it was with a card trick.

So my turn came, I got strapped in, and the operator told me the machine was so sensitive that it could detect my intention to tell a lie even before I spoke. To demonstrate, he brought out a deck of cards and told me to cut it anywhere I wanted and look at the card. I did, and cut to a nine of diamonds.

Except my co-worker had mentioned that he had cut to the nine of diamonds.

The operator then said "Now memorize the card and put the deck back together. Don't let me see anything."

I did. The operator then said, "Don't say a word, just think. Is your card black? Is it red? It's red. Is it a face card? It isn't a face card. Is it below five? No. Is it a six? A seven? An eight? A nine? Is it a heart? No, your card was the nine of diamonds."

"Fantastic, Ace," I said, revealing the six or eight cards I had palmed. "In fact, they were all nines of diamonds. I'm out of here." And I unhooked myself and started out.

"Aren't you worried about my report to the boss?" he asked.

"Aren't you worried I'll tell him he hired a fraud?" I asked.

I got a good report.

[wolfgirl]

This would certainly make the delivering of message easier on people like me who have had actual telepathic experiences and who so want to be believed.I don't think you're lying. I think you genuinely believe that you have had supernatural experiences.

The problem is that there is no evidence that these types of experience have ever existed, short of anecdotal evidence such as your own. And if you've studied human psychology, you will know that everything that people have given as evidence of paranormal activity can be explained through psychology.

The mind is an incredibly complex mechanism. Our subconscious fills in blanks and provides explanations for things for us when the explanation doesn't seem obvious to our rational mind. We have all had experiences that seemed odd or inexplicable, but none of these experiences fit the bill of truly inexplicable once you take psychology into account. (Not to mention coincidence.)

If you thought you had a paranormal experience, I would bet my life that it has a perfectly rational explanation that you are simply unable or unwilling (consciously or unconsciously) to accept.

You are welcome here on this forum. You simply must understand that we require evidence for extraordinary claims, beyond simply saying, "I had this weird experience, and I can't explain it, so to me it proves such-and-such supernatural thing." Because to us it proves nothing other than that you are human and fallible. And less willing to skepically examine your experience than we are.

[median]

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.



I'd rather think that the problem exists at the hypothesis level. That is why there is no cogent theory of psi (aside from QM :boggled: ) as yet. People tend to let pre-existing ideas guide their thinking whilst actually being unable to test them realistically.