Is Parapsychology a Science?
Science is a methodology of studying a subject. It is the application of methodological naturalism, with an attitude and desire to identify incorrect hypotheses about the subject, and improve them. Any subject area can, in principle, be studied as a science. Many subject areas, such as art, history, etc, however, do not lend themselves to the formalisms of science, hence science is not the be-all and end-all of legitimate study fields.
Parapsychology can be both practiced in the field, and studied scientifically. It has been a field of scientific study since the founding of the UK Society for Psychical Research in 1882, followed by the American society in 1885. Both of these societies attracted leading scientists as members.
The work of these two societies focused on investigating and characterizing psychic behavior in the field. It involved studying dramatic acquisition of unnatural knowing, and of psychokinetics. Of note, is William James summary of the quantity and quality of this accumulation of data: 'the concrete evidence for most of the “psychic” phenomena under discussion is good enough to hang a man twenty times over' (James, 1896: 650).
In the 1940s, parapsychology moved into laboratory testing, with James Rhine performing lab experiments on telepathy. Of his over 40 published papers on those studies, 37 of them show statistically significant positive results.
The most prominent parapsychic research society today is the Parapsychology Association, which is a member society of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is the umbrella association of American scientific professional societies.
The Parapsychology Association summarizes the issues which have been definitively settled in psi research on its FAQ pages. https://parapsych.org/articles/36/55/what_is_the_stateoftheevidence.aspx Quoting:
ESP exists, presentiment (physical changes in skin reactivity, pupil size, heart rate, and other factors indicating precognition before a stimulus is applied) exists, telepathy (direct mind-mind communication) exists, and mind-matter interaction (previously known as psychokinesis or PK) exists.
ESP is statistically robust, meaning it can be reliably demonstrated through repeated trials. However, it may vary it but it tends to be weak when simple geometric symbols are used as targets. Photographic or video targets often produce effects many times larger, and there is some evidence that ESP on natural locations (as opposed to photos of them), and in natural contexts may be stronger still. Also, a lot has been learned about what kinds of conditions (such as the partial sensory deprivation used in the Ganzfeld) can enhance psi.
Some mind-matter interaction (MMI) effects have also been shown to exist. When individuals focus their intention on mechanical or electronic devices that fluctuate randomly, the fluctuations change in ways that conform to their mental intention. Under control conditions, when individuals direct their attention elsewhere, the fluctuations are in accordance with chance.
Parapsychology has led the rest of science in the development of good statistical practice, and good journal practice. In the 1980s parapsych journals implemented policies of publishing all quality submitted papers, ending the preferences for "interesting" research and positive results. This reduces the bias in science in favor of only showing positive, not negative or indeterminate outcomes, increasing the size of paper databases on a phenomenon. It also increases the number of replications published in the field. Both of these shortcomings continue to plague most science fields and their journals, which have generally not yet adopted these polices.
Parapsychology has shown steady improvement in understanding of telepathy, with card guessing running only about 5% above random, sleep telepathy about 9%, and Ganzfeld improving the effect size to about 14%. See this list of Ganzfeld study effect sizes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7883320/
Parapsychology pioneered the development of meta analysis, which is now the gold standard of evidence in science. Rhine was the first to attempt a meta analysis, and Bem's 90 study metanalysis of precognition, showing a greater than 6 sigma level of confidence in a real effect is one of the more recent stellar examples of the methodology: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/
Practical applications have been achieved with Remove Viewing (which has about a 35% above random effect size, see https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/r9yw5 ), which was implemented by the CIA for over 25 years. In more recent years, precognition remote viewing was used to fund one Psi lab's operations, and has been used in archaeology.
Under all criteria for what is science the answer for parapsychology is "yes":
- Does it use methodological naturalism? Yes
- Is the Research Programme open to accepting and addressing questions and concerns? Yes
- Does the Research Programme demonstrate real effects, with improving understanding and theory? Yes
Additionally, some other posters have asked for additional criteria, not normally considered pre-requisites for something to be science, but they have been satisfied too:
- Have "definitive" evidences been compiled? Yes
- Are there practical applications? Yes
So, by all standards parapsychology IS a science.
Why is there any dispute?
It is notable that there are multiple ideological movements in society, which find science study of evidences that challenge their ideology to be uncomfortable. These movements often assert "skepticism" of science, or of other legitimate fields. I note that skepticism is not just of science, as Holocaust skepticism also challenges history.
Examples of science skepticism include Smoking health skepticism which challenged cancer research on smoking. YECs who challenge much of science which shows an old earth. OECs challenge evolution. ID advocates challenge Abiogenesis, and some aspects of evolution. Climate skeptics challenge AGW. Vaccine skeptics challenge medical science. And physicalists challenge parapsychology. The challengers of the evidence against all of these ideologies call themselves skeptics, and they follow a common script:
- Attack the reliability of the evidence they dispute, with cherry picked examples, and impossible standard fallacies.
- Smear the researchers who are producing the data in question.
- Engage in showmanship deflections from science questions.
- Practice data or analysis fraud when doing research or analysis
This particular community does not have a high representation of the other denier movements, but physicalists are a plurality within philosophy, so parapsychology denialism has a significant representation on this board.
Note I listed two non-standard "requirements" that members here posted relative to parapsychology being a science, those of practical application, and definitive evidence. Neither are actually requirements to be a science, and the invoking of them is the invoking of a fallacious special pleading standard against the offending science.
There have been many snarky smears of parapsychology and parapsychologists on this page -- none substantiated, of course.
The James Randi Challenge was also cited, and it is an excellent example of a showmanship distraction. Randi was a magician, with no science background, but a good grasp of showmanship. His challenge was designed not to be met. to undertake the challenge, both the claimant and JREF had to agree on a protocol, and if a claimant was credible, JREF would just be unreasonable in its protocol negotiation. As one would expect form such a showmanship test, no actual scientists could expect to actually be tested. And sure enough, something came up in "working out the details" prevented EVER testing an actual parapsychology result in any of the JREF tests. If JREF never tested real claimants, then the failure to have any successful tests, tells one nothing about psi. The claims here that JREF's test never having been satisfied, supposedly showing something, are -- straight up misrepresentation, and an example of invalid reasoning.
For data fraud, I will point to three examples:
The leading parapsychology skeptic society, CSICOP, conducted a series of efforts to debunk data supporting an astrology effect, the Mars Effect. The initial test definitively refuted CSICOP, but the organization did not concede this, instead asking for a separate sub-study of the astrology sample. This is basic dishonesty and deflection, but not yet fraud. However, when the sub-study also confirmed the astrology effect, CSICOP threw out half the data (all people born outside Paris, and all women), to find a sample that did not show the effect. This is data fraud. CSICOP then called for a further test, of American rather than European athletes, and continued collecting and analyzing data incrementally, until a sample finally did not support the astrology effect, THEN declared the compilation and analysis to be over! This is called selective stopping, and is also data fraud. the fraud was revealed by one of the participants who blew the whistle, but he was then purged from the CSICOP board, and another fraudster installed in his place. Here is the expose: https://www.newdualism.org/papers/D.Rawlins/Starbaby.html
One of the leading lights of the parapsych skeptic movement, Susan Blackmore, who was a former parapsychologist herself, claims to be a better researcher than her peers, and to "never found psi" in her own work, which led to her conversion to skeptic. An evaluation of her work, found a very different outcome. https://www.parapsych.org/uploaded_files/pdfs/00/00/00/01/17/susan_blackmore_critique_1989.pdf this evaluation showed that approximately 30% of Blackmore's own studies shows statistically significant results, AND that basically all of her experiments were of poor design. What Blackmore did, was assert that whenever she got a positive result, it must have been an artifact of her poor study design! AND Blackmore was already a convinced skeptic at the time she did most of her experimental work, so this post-test rationalized dismissal of positive results, actually had nothing to do with her becoming a skeptic! Blackmore's narrative -- of her being a superior experimenter, of her never finding psi, and of her subsequent conversion -- all are falsehoods!
Another leading light of the skeptic movement studied dog ESP, where a dog was claimed to know when his master was returning home. Dr Rupert Sheldrake found that when he mapped the time the dog was at the window per 10 minute period, the dog was there over 80% of the time, when his master was returning home. Wiseman instead cited when the dog FIRST went to the window, and found no correlation to when the master returned home. The dog was young and active, and moved around a lot, so this "first visit" metric was -- inappropriate. Wiseman had seen Sheldrake's results, and Wiseman deliberately chose an invalid metric to mask the actual dog psi! This is data fraud. See details here: https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/richard-wiseman-s-claim-to-have-debunked-the-psychic-pet-phenomenon
Ideologues, who will never be convinced by any evidence, are about as anti-science as one can get. Blackmore, in her autobiography, explicitly admits to this. She will never believe any psi data, as she considers physicalism to have been SO thoroughly justified, that she will consider the possibility of either fraud or data error to always be greater than that psi is present.
Another leading light of the skeptic movement has a similar anti-data focus. This would be Dr Steven Novella, the founder of the site Science-based medicine. Novella advocates against "evidence based medicine" because so many psi-based medical techniques show positive results when tested (acupuncture, reiki, etc). He dismisses any medicine which is not based on a physicalist worldview, and advocates against their being tested, or test results published.
When the "skeptical defenders" of physicalism resort to dismissal of testing, the rest of us can know we are dealing with an ideology and set of ideologues. The anti-psi skeptical societies are just advocates and agents for a close-minded anti-science ideology.