Written by Craig Weiler
Edited by Anders Bolling
FJN contributor Craig Weiler covers parapsychology, the science of psychic phenomena (also called “psi”) as an editor of Paranormal Daily News. In his book, “Psi Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet,” he exposes the materialist bias against psi and the manipulation of parapsychological research in widely used and respected web sources. In this FJN Special Report, Weiler offers journalists guidance on covering this nuanced field of science informed by his own experience.
Controversy surrounds non-physical phenomena, in and out of the lab. Parapsychology is held to much higher standards of rigor and repeatability than more traditional areas of science due to the non-physical and subjective nature of the phenomena. Evidence can be objective and quantitative – such as measuring biological and neurological changes during experiments – and subjective and qualitative, such as a person describing a sensation or visualization. This report provides a personal introduction to a research field that is often misunderstood.
Overview
Parapsychology, the science of psychic ability, is easily the most interesting, and least understood area of scientific inquiry there is. It is shrouded in mystery with many conflicting opinions about it ranging from complete dismissal to complete acceptance.
If you try to learn about parapsychology through ordinary Google searches, you will almost certainly end up with an overly skeptical point of view. This is partly because a well-funded atheist media organization, The Center for Inquiry, which owns The Skeptical Inquirer, has been tirelessly at work influencing science editors and Wikipedia for decades. They have made themselves the spokespeople for all skepticism and there is always someone available to speak to the press.
But this is also a cultural issue. It’s far easier to get skeptical articles published in mainstream publications, so most people who are knowledgeable about parapsychology are reduced to writing on Substack, Medium or on blogs, where they have difficulty either being searched or building the necessary credibility or both.
Another part of the culture is that while researchers face questioning and criticism, skeptics are never questioned about the legitimacy of their criticism or even fact-checked, which makes researchers controversial, while skeptics can say whatever they want and even lie without consequences. That’s the nature of the game.
How to create a balanced and fair representation of parapsychology research
Skeptics are supposed to provide a balanced and neutral assessment based on having a similar area of expertise, not merely provide disbelief. They should always be quizzed on whether they are familiar with what they are criticizing, and they should be probed to see if they take the subject matter seriously. If someone cannot provide sufficient detail or are flippant about the subject, their opinions should not be included.
An advanced degree in an adjacent field does not qualify someone to speak knowledgeably about parapsychology. It is its own field with very specific protocols for dealing with the nuances of what they are studying. It builds on a large database of previous experiments and theory. It is not wise to allow someone unfamiliar with these things to offer critiques. There are very few skeptics of this field who are qualified to have an opinion. And even those who are qualified have their own biases. They are almost all atheists. A fair and balanced science article should understand that criticism is just an opinion, nothing more or less.
Allowing skepticism/criticism to go uncontested is biased. A good rule of thumb for writing about any scientific research is to never allow criticism without also allowing for a rebuttal from the person being targeted. A person claiming to be skeptical is not necessarily qualified to pass judgment or may have missed something important due to their own biases. Rebuttals often uncover these problems.
A good test of reasonable skepticism is whether it is confined to a specific aspect of an experiment that could be feasibly improved or whether it is overly broad. The skeptic must also be able to commit to what constitutes enough evidence for him or her. “I’ll know it when I see it” is not an acceptable answer.
Parapsychology is a legitimate science
The Parapsychological Association is a science organization affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and it approaches scientific inquiry no differently than other similar scientific fields. Full membership is granted to people with advanced degrees (scientists) who have demonstrated an active interest in the field.
Experiments are published in various scientific journals, typically from the fields of psychology and physics, as well as their own Journal of Parapsychology and meet at a minimum, ordinary standards of peer review. The Parapsychological Association hosts annual scientific conferences in various parts of the world and also hosts informal monthly meetings.
While the study of psychic ability is a unique specialization with its own body of knowledge, it is supported by mainstream grant foundations and universities and therefore complies with all the typical rules required to meet the science requirements of ordinary grant processes. It is, in every way that matters, just another field of science following all the same rules and procedures.
Other organizations conducting and presenting psi research include Society for Psychical Research, Institute of Noetic Science, and Scientific & Medical Network.
The problem of conflicting information
It is impossible to have a conversation about this scientific field without addressing the enormous controversy surrounding it. Journalists must fact-check various sources to gain a more objective idea. This is especially difficult for psi because different, seemingly authoritative sources can have very different viewpoints.
To give an idea of how various sources see parapsychology, here are two wildly different encyclopedia definitions:
Encyclopedia Britannica
parapsychology, Discipline concerned with investigating events that cannot be accounted for by natural law and knowledge that cannot have been obtained through the usual sensory abilities. Parapsychology studies the cognitive phenomena often called extrasensory perception, in which a person acquires knowledge of other people’s thoughts or of future events through channels apparently beyond the five senses. It also examines physical phenomena such as the levitation of objects and the bending of metal through psychokinesis. Though belief in such phenomena may be traced to earliest times, parapsychology as a subject of serious research originated in the late 19th century, partly in reaction to the growth of the spiritualist movement. The Society of Psychical Research was established in London in 1882, and similar societies were later founded in the U.S. and in many European countries. In the 20th century research into parapsychology was also conducted at some universities, notably at Duke University under J. B. Rhine.
Wikipedia
Parapsychology is the study of alleged psychic phenomena (extrasensory perception, telepathy, precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis (also called telekinesis), and psychometry) and other paranormal claims, for example, those related to near-death experiences, synchronicity, apparitional experiences, etc.[1] Criticized as being a pseudoscience, the majority of mainstream scientists reject it.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Parapsychology has also been criticized by mainstream critics for claims by many of its practitioners that their studies are plausible despite a lack of convincing evidence after more than a century of research for the existence of any psychic phenomena.[1][10][11]
Parapsychology research rarely appears in mainstream scientific journals; a few niche journals publish most papers about parapsychology.[12]
Has Britannica gone soft and Wikipedia is telling it like it is? Or is Wikipedia hopelessly biased? Britannica has experts review their entries; Wikipedia has anonymous laypeople.
Most skeptics, if you asked them, would lean towards the Wikipedia definition. But is it true? Etzel Cardeña, professor at Lund University in Sweden argues that not only is parapsychology a real science, but that the accumulated evidence is convincing.
Sorting out who is right and who is wrong by examining the science itself is a task far beyond anyone not specializing in this subject matter. The intricacies of parapsychology are just as complex as any other science. Esoteric minutiae such as how you set your prior probability (H1) in your Bayesian analysis or which studies you include or exclude in your meta-analysis matter a great deal, but a journalist cannot be expected to dig this deep.
Skepticism surrounding parapsychology
It’s important to understand that parasychology often is subject to hostility, even in the academic world, and criticism of the science and findings can devolve into irrationality.
Nearly everyone involved in parapsychology divides the skeptics into two camps: scoffers (a.k.a. pseudo skeptics) and “real” skeptics who are open-minded. The former pretend to be open-minded, but do not fairly consider evidence, while the latter are curious about the idea that psychic ability exists.
There are far more scoffers, and their presence is far more pervasive than true skeptics. Scoffers can usually be recognized through the vaguely angry, condescending tone of their writing, but there are other ways as well. Scoffers, in my experience, are confirmed atheists. All of them. Parapsychology experiments threaten their strongly held belief that the mind is just brain chemistry and that there is no life after death. Scoffers tend to describe parapsychology as a pseudoscience or as “failed.” Unfortunately, the people making these assertions have done no research and don’t know the basic facts.
The scientific community has accepted parapsychology as a science since 1969. Parapsychology’s affiliation with the AAAS is sufficient proof of its legitimacy. It’s not up for debate. Similarly, statements such as “there is no evidence for psi (psychic ability)” or “failed research” are baseless.
Sources that exclusively cite skeptical opinions and skeptical reviews of evidence are biased. In parapsychology there is always a rebuttal from the scientists who did the study or from others involved in the field. Their point of view should always be included in any article about a particular experiment or the field in general.
Almost all skepticism in the media can be traced back to the previously mentioned Center for Inquiry, which is mostly a media organization but its services include aiding atheists who face persecution and fighting the encroachment of religion into government. Although they do some good, this atheist organization is very hostile towards parapsychology as a science, since it directly threatens their atheist belief system.
Their affiliate, the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project, is mostly responsible for the terrible representation of parapsychology, parapsychologists and their experiments on Wikipedia. Editors who try to correct the situation are usually banned and always prevented from making any meaningful changes to Wiki pages. Wikipedia’s internal structure prevents any corrections and rewards those who defend the system as it is.
Among all the prominent skeptics, only two have the qualifications to talk intelligently about parapsychology: Psychology professors Chris French and Richard Wiseman. Both have conducted studies and engaged with parapsychologists and are familiar with the field. Also, despite their years of involvement, neither has ever managed to produce a successful psi experiment. If you hear about a parapsychology experiment that failed replication, it was almost certainly conducted by either of those two. (By the way, failed replications are common and don’t mean that a study wasn’t successful. Statistics are used to lump studies together to see if combining them produces positive results. If the studies with positive outcomes outweigh those that failed, the overall outcome is positive. This situation is quite common in parapsychology.)
Psi Research: Notable experiments
If parapsychology were treated as an ordinary science and held to ordinary scientific standards, psychic ability would have been established as real over half a century ago. However, it has always been held to unrealistic standards, which have often changed as milestones have been met.
The Ganzfeld
This telepathy experiment is the most prominent scientific trial in parapsychology. The experiment has had many replications and has met all scientific criteria for success including addressing all rational objections. For an explanation and a balanced look at the experiment and surrounding controversies, use this article in the Psi Encyclopedia. Be aware that the Wikipedia article about it is poorly written and riddled with inaccuracies.
Feeling the Future
This precognition experiment from 2011 was notable for being published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is very highly regarded. The basis for this experiment was the use of a well-known psychology experiment with a few parameters switched to change it from measuring a reaction after a stimulus was presented to measuring a reaction before the stimulus was presented. It showed that in general, we have an unconscious reaction to strong stimuli right before we encounter them.
To date, this is the most high profile experiment in parapsychology and it has led to the field of psychology being slightly more open to this field of science. Parapsychology provides a way to view exceptional experiences without pathologizing them.
Summary: It wasn’t perfect, but the weight of positive replications has overcome the many objections.
Use this article in the Psi Encyclopedia for a complete understanding of the experiment and replications.
Telekinesis (a.k.a. psychokinesis)
This is a major branch of research in parapsychology. The basis for nearly all this research is random number generators (RNGs) that use radioactive decay to create truly random numbers. The objective of these experiments is to bring order to the randomness. The effect size is tiny, so they rely on a huge number of trials to show that the effect, despite being very small, is real. There are many different variations on these experiments.
The most recent research, conducted by Dean Radin of IONS, does not use RNGs but rather the well-known double slit experiment from quantum physics. The implications from this type of experiment are huge because it shows changes created solely by the mind. It strongly suggests that the universe is fundamentally mind, rather than matter.
Summary: The original experiments were so successful that they spawned a number of variations to learn new things.
Use this article in the Psi Encyclopedia.
Mediumship
Since the early 2000’s, a highly publicized mediumship experiment by Gary Schwartz using prominent mediums of the time, lab research into mediumship has undergone an extensive period of refinement to eliminate possible problems with the experiments. The experiments have inherent challenges: The sitter might be biased, the experimenter might be giving clues, and the medium might be getting information through normal means.
To solve this, the experiments must be blinded in every possible way, which can disrupt the normal flow of the process. (You want to control for problems, but also not ruin conditions for positive results.) Despite these drawbacks, a quintuple-blinded protocol was adopted, with everyone blinded, including the researcher and sitter, and it was demonstrated that even with all these controls, mediums could still be successful.
Summary: Once a best practice was established for experimentation, the studies were successfully replicated numerous times.
See this in depth article in the Psi Encyclopedia.
Other Experiments
There are several areas of psychic ability where testing has been done with positive results, yet they have gotten little to no traction in the scientific community. Parapsychology is a very small field and resources are spread thin. A scientist might pursue a path with promise, but it can only gain prominence if other scientists pursue it as well. Pre-internet, some paths were killed by overzealous skepticism, which prevented other researchers from even knowing what occurred. Some areas don’t lend themselves to easy replication. This is a very small sampling:
• Reiki, a form of hands on healing, has not just a few studies, but several literature reviews. The Center for Reiki research, though, operates entirely separately from the parapsychological association.
• Hands-on healing on rats with incurable cancer. A Methoddeveloped byWilliam Bengston. Notable for a high percentage of rats being completely cured when mortality should have been 100 percent.
• Mirror Worlds Research is a group of ten telepathy studies done by graduate students under the direction of Russell Gruber.
• Telepathy studies done with nonvocal autistic children by psychiatrist Diane Hennacy Powell. These studies are not peer reviewed, but the video evidence is quite remarkable for the accuracy of these children (see page 30 here).
• A 1956 study on people subconsciously avoiding taking trains that crashed. Fewer people, at least in the U.S., take trains nowadays, and you can’t get the same data from planes because they have standby options.
The search for easily repeatable experiments
Testing for psychic ability is not like testing whether a rock will fall to the ground if you drop it. It’s more like psychology or medical experiments; sometimes the experiment is successful, sometimes it’s not and it’s not always possible to determine why one fails and the other succeeds. This is why replication is so important.
Both successful and failed experiments are lumped together in a meta-analysis and statistics are used to see whether the overall result is successful or not. Because of the controversy inherent in parapsychology, this opens the door to questioning the validity of the results. Finding an easily repeatable experiment would solve the problem, but this has proven elusive.
The use of gifted individuals does produce better results, but finding and selecting those individuals carries its own set of problems, ranging from the expense of finding and verifying these people to the inability to do replications.
General populations are the easiest to find and test, and those tests easily lend themselves to replication, but in a generalized test, the group as a whole will not show meaningful ability. More refined testing has shown that believers and skeptics can cancel each other out, with the former having positive results and the latter having negative results. This is a promising area for future exploration.
Rethinking reality
One of the main stumbling blocks for parapsychology is the inability of people to wrap their heads around how something like psychic ability is supposed to work. What is the mechanism?
In general, it requires rethinking our normal assumptions about what reality is. For psychic ability and the paranormal to be real, it means that the mind, not the physical world, is the source of our existence. In that model — which is consistent with ancient Hermetic Law of the universe — it is consciousness, not the material world, that is fundamental to reality.
Reincarnation research especially demonstrates that our minds survive bodily death. This is not possible in a universe in which the mind is just a bunch of brain wiring.
The implication of this for the rest of the scientific world is profound.
- True objectivity does not exist, which means that all of physics is necessarily relational and relative. (We can only measure something based on its relation to other things. We can only establish motion relative to other motion.)
- Objective reality does not exist. Instead, we have consensual reality. Something can be real for one person and not for another.
- Belief guides the reality we experience. (In parapsychology this is known as the experimenter effect. Irrespective of the quality of controls, an experimenter can affect the outcome of their experiment.)
Parapsychology Resources
• Psi Encyclopedia by the Society for Psychical Research
• Parapsychological Association
• Institute of Noetic Science (US)
• Rhine Institute (US)
• Society for Scientific Exploration and Journal of Scientific Exploration (Media Specialist Cindy Little, Ph.D.)
• Universities offer parapsychology degrees and studies (generally within psychology departments): University of Virginia’s Department of Perceptual Studies (US); University of Northampton (UK); University of Edinburgh’s Koestler Parapsychology Unit (UK); Northumbria University (UK); University of West Georgia (US); Lund University (Sweden); and many more.
