Editing Parapsychology (section)

==Scientific reception==
[[Image:James Alcock.jpg|thumb|upright|right|[[James Alcock]] is a notable critic of parapsychology.]]

===Evaluation===

The scientific consensus is that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of psi phenomena.<ref>Simon Hoggart, Mike Hutchinson. (1995). ''Bizarre Beliefs''. Richard Cohen Books. p. 145. {{ISBN|978-1573921565}} "The trouble is that the history of research into psi is littered with failed experiments, ambiguous experiments, and experiments which are claimed as great successes but are quickly rejected by conventional scientists. There has also been some spectacular cheating."</ref><ref>Robert Cogan.  (1998). ''Critical Thinking: Step by Step''. University Press of America. p. 227. {{ISBN|978-0761810674}} "When an experiment can't be repeated and get the same result, this tends to show that the result was due to some error in experimental procedure, rather than some real causal process. ESP experiments simply have not turned up any repeatable paranormal phenomena."</ref><ref>Charles M. Wynn, Arthur W. Wiggins. (2001). ''Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins''. Joseph Henry Press. p. 165. {{ISBN|978-0309073097}} "Extrasensory perception and psychokinesis fail to fulfill the requirements of the scientific method. They therefore must remain pseudoscientific concepts until methodological flaws in their study are eliminated, and repeatable data supporting their existence are obtained."</ref><ref>[[Terence Hines]]. (2003). ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. p. 144. {{ISBN|1573929794}} "It is important to realize that, in one hundred years of parapsychological investigations, there has never been a single adequate demonstration of the reality of any psi phenomenon."</ref><ref name="Dalkvist1994">{{cite book|author=Jan Dalkvist|title=Telepathic Group Communication of Emotions as a Function of Belief in Telepathy|year=1994|publisher=Dept. of Psychology, Stockholm University|quote=Within the scientific community however, the claim that psi anomalies exist or may exist is in general regarded with skepticism. One reason for this difference between the scientist and the non scientist is that the former [sic] relies on his own experiences and anecdotal reports of psi phenomena, whereas the scientist at least officially requires replicable results from well controlled experiments to believe in such phenomena - results which according to the prevailing view among scientists, do not exist.}}</ref><ref name="Drees1998">{{cite book|author=Willem B. Drees|title=Religion, Science and Naturalism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BxmcHWCv2c4C&pg=PA242|access-date=5 October 2011|date=1998|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0521645621|pages=242–|quote=Let me take the example of claims in parapsychology regarding telepathy across spatial or temporal distances, apparently without a mediating physical process. Such claims are at odds with the scientific consensus.}}</ref><ref>[[Victor J. Stenger|Victor Stenger]]. (1990).  ''Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Senses''. Prometheus Books. p. 166. {{ISBN|087975575X}} "The bottom line is simple: science is based on consensus, and at present a scientific consensus that psychic phenomena exist is still not established."</ref><ref>Eugene B. Zechmeister, James E. Johnson. (1992). ''Critical Thinking: A Functional Approach''. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. p. 115. {{ISBN|0534165966}} "There exists no good scientific evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena such as ESP. To be acceptable to the scientific community, evidence must be both valid and reliable."</ref>

Scientists critical of parapsychology state that its extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence if they are to be taken seriously.<ref name=Gracely>{{cite web|last=Gracely, Ph.D. |first=Ed J. |title=Why Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof |website=PhACT |year=1998 |url=http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/extraproof.html
|access-date=2007-07-31}}</ref> Scientists who have evaluated parapsychology have written the entire body of evidence is of poor quality and not adequately [[Scientific control|controlled]].<ref>
* {{cite journal | last1 = Jastrow | first1 = Joseph | author-link = Joseph Jastrow | year = 1938 | title = ESP, House of Cards | journal = The American Scholar | volume = 8 | pages = 13–22 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Price | first1 = George | author-link = George R. Price | year = 1955 | title = Science and the Supernatural | journal = Science | volume = 122 | issue = 3165| pages = 359–367 | doi=10.1126/science.122.3165.359| pmid = 13246641 | bibcode = 1955Sci...122..359P}}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Girden | first1 = Edward | year = 1962 | title = A Review of Psychokinesis (PK) | journal = Psychological Bulletin | volume = 59 | issue = 5| pages = 353–388 | doi=10.1037/h0048209| pmid = 13898904 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Crumbaugh | first1 = James | year = 1966 | title = A Scientific Critique of Parapsychology | journal = International Journal of Neuropsychiatry | volume = 5 | issue = 5| pages = 521–29 | pmid = 5339559 }}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Moss | first1 = Samuel | last2 = Butler | first2 = Donald | year = 1978 | title = The Scientific Credibility Of ESP | journal = Perceptual and Motor Skills | volume = 46 | issue = 3_suppl| pages = 1063–1079 | doi=10.2466/pms.1978.46.3c.1063| s2cid = 143552463 }}
* [[Michael Shermer]]. (2003). ''Psychic drift. Why most scientists do not believe in ESP and psi phenomena''. Scientific American 288: 2.</ref> In support of this view, critics cite instances of fraud, flawed studies, and [[cognitive bias]]es (such as [[clustering illusion]], [[availability error]], [[confirmation bias]], [[illusion of control]], [[magical thinking]], and the [[bias blind spot]]) as ways to explain parapsychological results.<ref>[[Graham Reed (psychologist)|Graham Reed]]. (1988). ''The Psychology of Anomalous Experience: A Cognitive Approach''. Prometheus Books. {{ISBN|0879754354}} Leonard Zusne, Warren H. Jones (1989). ''Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking''. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. {{ISBN|0805805087}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Willard | first1 = AK | last2 = Norenzayan | first2 = A | year = 2013 | title = Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life's purpose | url = http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/RCED/article/view/55053| journal = Cognition | volume = 129 | issue = 2| pages = 379–391 | doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.016| pmid = 23974049 | s2cid = 18869844 }}</ref> Research has also shown that people's desire to believe in paranormal phenomena causes them to discount strong evidence that it does not exist.<ref>{{cite web |last=Myers |first=David G |author2=Blackmore, Susan |title=Putting ESP to the Experimental Test |website=Hope College |url=http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=61&article_part=4 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081005061535/http://www.davidmyers.org/Brix?pageID=61&article_part=4 |archive-date=2008-10-05 |access-date=2007-07-31 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The psychologists [[Donovan Rawcliffe]] (1952), [[C. E. M. Hansel]] (1980), [[Ray Hyman]] (1989), and Andrew Neher (2011) have studied the history of psi experiments from the late 19th century up until the 1980s. Flaws and weaknesses were discovered in every experiment investigated, so the possibility of [[sensory leakage]] and trickery were not ruled out. The data from the Creery sister and the [[Samuel Soal|Soal-Goldney]] experiments were proven to be fraudulent, one of the subjects from the [[George Albert Smith (film pioneer)|Smith-Blackburn]] experiments confessed to fraud, the Brugmans experiment, the experiments by [[John Edgar Coover]] and those conducted by [[Joseph Gaither Pratt]] and [[Helmut Schmidt (parapsychologist)|Helmut Schmidt]] had flaws in the design of the experiments, did not rule out the possibility of sensory cues or trickery and have not been replicated.<ref>[[Donovan Rawcliffe]]. (1952). ''The Psychology of the Occult''. Derricke Ridgway, London.</ref><ref>[[C. E. M. Hansel]]. (1980). ''ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Reevaluation''. Prometheus Books.</ref><ref>[[Ray Hyman]]. (1989). ''The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research''. Prometheus Books. {{ISBN|0879755040}}</ref><ref>Andrew Neher. (2011). ''Paranormal and Transcendental Experience: A Psychological Examination''. Dover Publications. {{ISBN|0486261670}}</ref>

According to critics, psi is negatively defined as any effect that cannot be currently explained in terms of chance or normal causes, and this is a fallacy as it encourages parapsychologists to use any peculiarity in the data as a characteristic of psi.<ref name="Hyman2007">[[Ray Hyman]]. ''Evaluating Parapsychological Claims'' in Robert J. Sternberg, Henry L. Roediger, Diane F. Halpern. (2007). ''Critical Thinking in Psychology''. Cambridge University Press. pp. 216–231. {{ISBN|978-0521608343}}</ref><ref name="Alcock2003">{{cite journal | last1 = Alcock | first1 = James | author-link = James Alcock | year = 2003 | title = Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance: Reasons to Remain Doubtful about the Existence of Psi | url = http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf | journal = Journal of Consciousness Studies | volume = 10 | pages = 29–50 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070810173433/http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf | archive-date = 2007-08-10 | accessdate = 2007-03-14 }} "Parapsychology is the only realm of objective inquiry in which the phenomena are all negatively defined, defined in terms of ruling out normal explanations. Of course, ruling out all normal explanations is not an easy task. We may not be aware of all possible normal explanations, or we may be deceived by our subjects, or we may deceive ourselves. If all normal explanations actually could be ruled out, just what is it that is at play? What is psi? Unfortunately, it is just a label. It has no substantive definition that goes beyond saying that all normal explanations have apparently been eliminated. Of course, parapsychologists generally presume that it has something to do with some ability of the mind to transcend the laws of nature as we know them, but all that is so vague as to be unhelpful in any scientific exploration."</ref> Parapsychologists have admitted it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of non-paranormal causes in their experiments. There is no independent method to indicate the presence or absence of psi.<ref name="Hyman2007"/> [[Persi Diaconis]] has written that the controls in parapsychological experiments are often loose with possibilities of subject cheating and unconscious sensory cues.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Diaconis | first1 = Persi | author-link = Persi Diaconis | year = 1978 | title = Statistical Problems in ESP Research | journal = Science | volume = 201 | issue = 4351| pages = 131–136 | doi=10.1126/science.663642 | pmid=663642| bibcode = 1978Sci...201..131D }}</ref>

In 1998, physics professor [[Michael W. Friedlander]] noted that parapsychology has "failed to produce any clear evidence for the existence of anomalous effects that require us to go beyond the known region of science."<ref>Michael W. Friedlander. (1998). ''At the Fringes of Science''. Westview Press. p. 122. {{ISBN|0813322006}}</ref> Philosopher and skeptic [[Robert Todd Carroll]] has written research in parapsychology has been characterized by "deception, fraud, and incompetence in setting up properly controlled experiments and evaluating statistical data."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.skepdic.com/parapsy.html |title=parapsychology – The Skeptic's Dictionary |publisher=Skepdic.com |date=2013-12-22 |access-date=2014-04-11}}</ref> The psychologist [[Ray Hyman]] has pointed out that some parapsychologists such as Dick Bierman, Walter Lucadou, J. E. Kennedy, and Robert Jahn have admitted the evidence for psi is "inconsistent, irreproducible, and fails to meet acceptable scientific standards."<ref>[[Ray Hyman]]. (2008). [http://www.csicop.org/si/show/anomalous_cognition_a_second_perspective/ "Anomalous Cognition? A Second Perspective"]. ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]''. Volume 32. Retrieved May 22, 2014.</ref> [[Richard Wiseman]] has criticized the parapsychological community for widespread errors in research methods including cherry-picking new procedures which may produce preferred results, explaining away unsuccessful attempted replications with claims of an "experimenter effect", [[data mining]], and [[Meta-analysis|retrospective data selection]].<ref>{{Cite journal | author = Wiseman, Richard | year = 2009 | title = Heads I Win, Tails You Lose | journal = Skeptical Inquirer | volume = 34 | issue = 1| pages = 36–40 }}</ref>

Independent evaluators and researchers dispute the existence of parapsychological phenomena and the scientific validity of parapsychological research. In 1988, the [[U.S. National Academy of Sciences]] published a report on the subject that concluded that "no scientific justification from research conducted over a period of 130 years for the existence of parapsychological phenomena."<ref name=NAS>{{Cite book|editor=Druckman, D. |editor2=Swets, J. A. |year=1988 |title=Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories and Techniques|publisher=National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.|page=22|isbn=978-0309074650}}</ref> No accepted [[theory]] of parapsychology currently exists, and many competing and often conflicting models have been advocated by different parapsychologists in an attempt to explain reported [[Paranormal|paranormal phenomena]].<ref>[[James Alcock]], Jean Burns, Anthony Freeman. (2003). ''Psi Wars: Getting to Grips with the Paranormal''. Imprint Academic. p. 25. {{ISBN|978-0907845485}}</ref> [[Terence Hines]] in his book ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal'' (2003), wrote, "Many theories have been proposed by parapsychologists to explain how psi takes place. To skeptics, such theory building seems premature, as the phenomena to be explained by the theories have yet to be demonstrated convincingly."<ref>[[Terence Hines]]. (2003). ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. p. 146. {{ISBN|1573929794}}</ref> Skeptics such as [[Antony Flew]] have cited the lack of such a theory as their reason for rejecting parapsychology.<ref>[[Antony Flew]]. (1989). ''The problem of evidencing the improbable and the impossible''. In G. K. Zollschan, J. F. Schumaker & G. F. Walsh (eds.). ''Exploring the paranormal''. pp. 313–327. Dorset, England: Prism Press.</ref>

In a review of parapsychological reports, Hyman wrote, "[[randomization]] is often inadequate, multiple statistical testing without adjustment for significance levels is prevalent, possibilities for [[sensory leakage]] are not uniformly prevented, errors in use of [[Statistical hypothesis testing|statistical tests]] are much too common, and [[documentation]] is typically inadequate".<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hyman | first1 = R | year = 1988 | title = Psi experiments: Do the best parapsychological experiments justify the claims for psi? | journal = Experientia | volume = 44 | issue = 4| pages = 315–322 | doi=10.1007/bf01961269| pmid = 3282907 | s2cid = 25735536 }}</ref> Parapsychology has been criticized for making no precise predictions.<ref>[[Mario Bunge]]. (1983). Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World. Springer. p. 56. {{ISBN|978-9027716347}}</ref>
[[Image:Hyman LeeRoss DarylBem VictorBenassi.jpg|thumb|upright|left|[[Ray Hyman]] (standing), [[Lee Ross]], [[Daryl Bem]] and Victor Benassi at the 1983 CSICOP Conference in Buffalo, New York]]
In 2003, [[James Alcock]] Professor of [[Psychology]] at [[York University]] published ''Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance: Reasons to Remain Doubtful about the Existence of Psi'', where he claimed that parapsychologists never seem to take seriously the possibility that psi does not exist. Because of that, they interpret null results as indicating only that they were unable to observe psi in a particular experiment rather than taking it as support for the possibility that there is no psi. The failure to take the [[null hypothesis]] as a serious alternative to their psi hypotheses leads them to rely upon many arbitrary "effects" to excuse failures to find predicted effects, excuse the lack of consistency in outcomes, and excuse failures to replicate.<ref name="Alcock2003"/>

Fundamental endemic problems in parapsychological research include, amongst others: insufficient definition of the subject matter, total reliance on negative definitions of their phenomena (e.g., psi is said to occur only when all known normal influences are ruled out); failure to produce a single phenomenon that neutral researchers can independently replicate; the invention of "effects" such as the psi-experimenter effect to explain away inconsistencies in the data and failures to achieve predicted outcomes; [[falsifiability|unfalsifiability]] of claims; the unpredictability of effects; lack of progress in over a century of formal research; methodological weaknesses; reliance on statistical procedures to determine when psi has supposedly occurred, even though statistical analysis does not in itself justify a claim that psi has occurred; and failure to jibe with other areas of science. Overall, he argues that there is nothing in parapsychological research that would ever lead parapsychologists to conclude that psi does not exist. So, even if it does not, the search will likely continue for a long time. "I continue to believe that parapsychology is, at bottom, motivated by belief in search of data, rather than data in search of explanation."<ref name="Alcock2003"/>

Alcock and cognitive psychologist [[Arthur S. Reber]] have criticized parapsychology broadly, writing that if psi effects were true, they would negate fundamental principles of science such as [[Causality (physics)|causality]], [[Entropy (arrow of time)|time's arrow]], [[thermodynamics]], and the [[inverse square law]]. According to Alcock and Reber, "parapsychology cannot be true unless the rest of science isn't. Moreover, if psi effects were real, they would have already fatally disrupted the rest of the body of science".<ref name="AlcockSI">{{cite journal |last1=Reber |first1=Arthur |last2=Alcock |first2=James |date=2019 |title=Why parapsychological claims cannot be true |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/07/why-parapsychological-claims-cannot-be-true/ |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=8–10 |quote=The lure of the 'para'-normal emerges, it seems, from the belief that there is more to our existence than can be accounted for in terms of flesh, blood, atoms, and molecules. A century and a half of parapsychological research has failed to yield evidence to support that belief.}}</ref>

Richard Land has written that from what is known about [[Human#Biology|human biology]], it is implausible that evolution has provided humans with [[extrasensory perception|ESP]] as research has shown the recognized five senses are adequate for the evolution and survival of the species.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Land | first1 = Richard I. | year = 1976 | title = Comments on Hypothetical Extrasensory Perception (ESP) | journal = [[Leonardo (journal)|Leonardo]] | volume = 9 | issue = 4| pages = 306–307 | doi=10.2307/1573360| jstor = 1573360 | s2cid = 191398466 }}</ref> [[Michael Shermer]], in the article "Psychic Drift: Why most scientists do not believe in ESP and psi phenomena" for ''[[Scientific American]]'', wrote "the reason for skepticism is that we need replicable data and a viable theory, both of which are missing in psi research."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Shermer | first1 = Michael | author-link = Michael Shermer | year = 2003 | title = Psychic drift. Why most scientists do not believe in ESP and psi phenomena | journal = Scientific American | volume = 288 | page = 2 }}</ref>

In January 2008, the results of a study using [[Functional magnetic resonance imaging|neuroimaging]] were published. To provide what are purported to be the most favorable experimental conditions, the study included appropriate emotional stimuli and had biologically or emotionally related participants, such as twins. The experiment was designed to produce positive results if [[telepathy]], [[clairvoyance]] or [[precognition]] occurred. Still, despite this, no distinguishable neuronal responses were found between psychic and non-psychic stimuli, while variations in the same stimuli showed anticipated effects on brain activation patterns. The researchers concluded, "These findings are the strongest evidence yet obtained against the existence of paranormal mental phenomena."<ref name="Moulton">{{cite journal | last1 = Moulton | first1 = S. T. | last2 = Kosslyn | first2 = S. M. | year = 2008 | title = Using Neuroimaging to Resolve the Psi Debate | url = http://www.creativespirit.net/psiresearch/neuroimagepsi.pdf | journal = Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience | volume = 20 | issue = 1 | pages = 182–192 | doi = 10.1162/jocn.2008.20.1.182 | pmid = 18095790 | access-date = 2017-10-25 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170812011925/http://www.creativespirit.net/psiresearch/neuroimagepsi.pdf | archive-date = 2017-08-12 | url-status = dead }}</ref> Other studies have attempted to test the psi hypothesis by using functional neuroimaging. A neuroscience review of the studies (Acunzo ''et al''. 2013) discovered methodological weaknesses that could account for the reported psi effects.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Acunzo | first1 = D.J. | last2 = Evrard | first2 = R. | last3 = Rabeyron | first3 = T. | year = 2013 | title = Anomalous Experiences, Psi, and Functional Neuroimaging | journal = Frontiers in Human Neuroscience | volume = 7 | page = 893 | doi=10.3389/fnhum.2013.00893| pmid = 24427128 | pmc = 3870293 | doi-access = free }}</ref>

A 2014 study discovered that [[Schizophrenia|schizophrenic]] patients have more belief in psi than healthy adults.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Shiah | first1 = YJ | last2 = Wu | first2 = YZ | last3 = Chen | first3 = YH | last4 = Chiang | first4 = SK | year = 2014 | title = Schizophrenia and the paranormal: More psi belief and superstition, and less déjà vu in medicated schizophrenic patients | journal = Comprehensive Psychiatry | volume = 55 | issue = 3| pages = 688–692 | doi=10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.11.003| pmid = 24355706 }}</ref>

Some researchers have become [[Skepticism|skeptical]] of parapsychology, such as [[Susan Blackmore]] and [[John G. Taylor|John Taylor]], after years of study and no progress in demonstrating the existence of psi by the scientific method.<ref>[[John G. Taylor|John Taylor]]. (1980). ''Science and the Supernatural: An Investigation of Paranormal Phenomena Including Psychic Healing, Clairvoyance, Telepathy, and Precognition by a Distinguished Physicist and Mathematician''. Temple Smith. {{ISBN|0851171915}}</ref><ref>[[Susan Blackmore]]. (2001). ''Why I Have Given Up'' in [[Paul Kurtz]]. ''Skeptical Odysseys: Personal Accounts by the World's Leading Paranormal Inquirers''. Prometheus Books. pp. 85–94. {{ISBN|1573928844}}</ref>

===Physics===

The ideas of psi ([[precognition]], psychokinesis and [[telepathy]]) violate well-established [[Physical law|laws of physics]].<ref>[[Mario Bunge]]. (1983). ''Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World''. Springer. pp. 225–226. {{ISBN|978-9027716347}}
* "Precognition violates the principle of antecedence ("causality"), according to which the effect does not happen before the cause. Psychokinesis violates the principle of conservation of energy as well as the postulate that mind cannot act directly on matter. (If it did no experimenter could trust his own readings of his instruments.) Telepathy and precognition are incompatible with the epistemological principle according to which the gaining of factual knowledge requires sense perception at some point."
* "Parapsychology makes no use of any knowledge gained in other fields, such as physics and physiological psychology. Moreover, its hypotheses are inconsistent with some basic assumptions of factual science. In particular, the very idea of a disembodied mental entity is incompatible with physiological psychology; and the claim that signals can be transmitted across space without fading with distance is inconsistent with physics."</ref> Psychokinesis violates the [[inverse-square law]], the [[second law of thermodynamics]], and the [[conservation of momentum]].<ref>{{cite book| author-link = Martin Gardner| last = Gardner| first = Martin| editor = Kendrick Frazier| title = Paranormal Borderlands of Science| chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=XjENAQAAMAAJ| date = 1981| publisher = Prometheus| isbn = 978-0879751487| pages = 60–65| chapter = Einstein and ESP}} [[Thomas Gilovich|Gilovich, Thomas]] (1993). ''How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life''. Simon & Schuster. pp. 160, 169, 174, 175. {{ISBN|978-0029117064}}.</ref><ref>[[Milton A. Rothman]]. (1988). ''A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism''. Prometheus Books. p. 193. {{ISBN|978-0879754402}} "Transmission of information through space requires transfer of energy from one place to another. Telepathy requires transmission of an energy-carrying signal directly from one mind to another. All descriptions of ESP imply violations of conservation of energy in one way or another, as well as violations of all the principles of information theory and even of the principle of causality. Strict application of physical principles requires us to say that ESP is impossible."</ref> There is no known mechanism for psi.<ref>Charles M. Wynn, Arthur W. Wiggins. (2001). ''Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction: Where Real Science Ends...and Pseudoscience Begins''. Joseph Henry Press. p. 165. {{ISBN|978-0309073097}} "One of the reasons scientists have difficulty believing that psi effects are real is that there is no known mechanism by which they could occur. PK action-at-a-distance would presumably employ an action-at-a-distance force that is as yet unknown to science... Similarly, there is no known sense (stimulation and receptor) by which thoughts could travel from one person to another by which the mind could project itself elsewhere in the present, future, or past."</ref>

On the subject of [[psychokinesis]], the physicist [[Sean M. Carroll]] has written that both human brains and the spoons they try to bend are made, like all matter, of [[quark]]s and [[lepton]]s; everything else they do emerges as properties of the behavior of quarks and leptons. The quarks and leptons interact through the four forces: strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational. Thus, either it is one of the four known forces, or it is a new force, and any new force with a range over 1 millimeter must be at most a billionth the strength of gravity, or it will have been captured in experiments already done. This leaves no physical force that could account for psychokinesis.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/ |title=Telekinesis and Quantum Field Theory : Cosmic Variance |publisher=Blogs.discovermagazine.com |date=2008-02-18 |access-date=2014-04-11 |archive-date=2014-02-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140203183828/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/02/18/telekinesis-and-quantum-field-theory/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Physicist [[John G. Taylor]], who investigated parapsychological claims, wrote that an unknown fifth force causing psychokinesis would have to transmit a great deal of energy. The energy would have to overcome the [[Electromagnetism|electromagnetic forces]] binding the atoms together. The atoms would need to respond more strongly to the fifth force while it is operative than to electric forces. Therefore, such an additional force between atoms should exist all the time and not only during alleged paranormal occurrences. Taylor wrote there is no scientific trace of such a force in physics, down to many orders of magnitude; thus, if a scientific viewpoint is to be preserved, the idea of any fifth force must be discarded. Taylor concluded there is no possible physical mechanism for psychokinesis, and it is in complete contradiction to established science.<ref>[[John G. Taylor|John Taylor]]. (1980). ''Science and the Supernatural: An Investigation of Paranormal Phenomena Including Psychic Healing, Clairvoyance, Telepathy, and Precognition by a Distinguished Physicist and Mathematician''. Temple Smith. pp. 27–30. {{ISBN|0851171915}}</ref>

Felix Planer, a professor of [[electrical engineering]], has written that if psychokinesis were real, then it would be easy to demonstrate by getting subjects to depress a scale on a sensitive balance, raise the temperature of a water bath which could be measured with an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree [[Celsius]] or affect an element in an electrical circuit such as a resistor which could be monitored to better than a millionth of an ampere.<ref name="Planer1980">Felix Planer. (1980). ''Superstition''. Cassell. p. 242. {{ISBN|0304306916}}</ref> Planer writes that such experiments are extremely sensitive and easy to monitor but are not utilized by parapsychologists as they "do not hold out the remotest hope of demonstrating even a minute trace of PK" because the alleged phenomenon is non-existent. Planer has written that parapsychologists fall back on studies that involve only unrepeatable statistics, owing their results to poor experimental methods, recording mistakes, and faulty statistical mathematics.<ref name="Planer1980"/>

According to Planer, "all research in medicine and other sciences would become illusionary, if the existence of PK had to be taken seriously; for no experiment could be relied upon to furnish objective results, since all measurements would become falsified to a greater or lesser degree, according to his PK ability, by the experimenter's wishes." Planer concluded the concept of psychokinesis is absurd and has no scientific basis.<ref>Felix Planer. (1980). ''Superstition''. Cassell. p. 254. {{ISBN|0304306916}}</ref>

Philosopher and physicist [[Mario Bunge]] has written that "psychokinesis, or PK, violates the principle that mind cannot act directly on matter. (If it did, no experimenter could trust his readings of measuring instruments.) It also violates the principles of conservation of energy and momentum. The claim that quantum mechanics allows for the possibility of mental power influencing randomizers—an alleged case of micro-PK—is ludicrous since that theory respects the said conservation principles, and it deals exclusively with physical things."<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bunge|first1=Mario|title=Philosophy in Crisis :The Need for Reconstruction|url=https://archive.org/details/philosophycrisis00mari|url-access=limited|date=2001|publisher=Prometheus Books|location=Amherst, N.Y.|isbn=978-1573928434|page=[https://archive.org/details/philosophycrisis00mari/page/n164 176]}}</ref>

The physicist [[Robert L. Park]] questioned if the mind really could influence matter, then it would be easy for parapsychologists to measure such a phenomenon by using the alleged psychokinetic power to deflect a [[microbalance]] which would not require any dubious statistics but "the reason, of course, is that the microbalance stubbornly refuses to budge."<ref name="Park 2000">[[Robert L. Park]]. (2000). ''[[Voodoo Science|Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud]]''. Oxford University Press. pp. 198–200. {{ISBN|0198604432}}</ref> Park has suggested the reason statistical studies are so popular in parapsychology is because they introduce opportunities for uncertainty and error, which are used to support the biases of the experimenter. Park wrote, "No proof of psychic phenomena is ever found. In spite of all the tests devised by parapsychologists like [[Robert G. Jahn|Jahn]] and [[Dean Radin|Radin]], and huge amounts of data collected over a period of many years, the results are no more convincing today than when they began their experiments."<ref name="Park 2000"/>

===Pseudoscience===
[[Image:MarioBungesmall.jpg|thumb|upright|right|[[Mario Bunge]] has described parapsychology as a "[[pseudoscience]] paragon".<ref name="Bunge 1983">[[Mario Bunge]]. (1983). ''Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World''. Springer. pp. 225–227. {{ISBN|978-9027716347}}</ref>]]
Parapsychological theories are viewed as pseudoscientific by the scientific community as incompatible with well-established laws of [[science]]. As there is no repeatable evidence for psi, the field is often regarded as a [[pseudoscience]].<ref>[[Mario Bunge]]. (1984). ''What is Pseudoscience?''. The Skeptical Inquirer. Volume 9: 36–46.</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bunge | first1 = Mario | author-link = Mario Bunge | year = 1987 | title = Why Parapsychology Cannot Become a Science | journal = Behavioral and Brain Sciences | volume = 10 | issue = 4| pages = 576–577 | doi=10.1017/s0140525x00054595| doi-broken-date = 1 November 2024 }}</ref><ref>[[Arthur Newell Strahler]]. (1992). ''Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues''. Prometheus Books. pp. 168–212. {{ISBN|978-0879757243}}</ref><ref>[[Terence Hines]]. (2003). ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. pp. 113–150. {{ISBN|1573929794}}</ref>

The philosopher [[Raimo Tuomela]] summarized why the majority of scientists consider parapsychology to be a pseudoscience in his essay "Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience".<ref>[[Raimo Tuomela]] ''Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience'' in Joseph C. Pitt, Marcello Pera (1987). ''Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning''. Springer. pp. 83–102. {{ISBN|9401081816}}</ref>
* Parapsychology relies on an ill-defined ontology and typically shuns exact thinking.
* The hypotheses and theories of parapsychology have not been proven and are in bad shape.
* Extremely little progress has taken place in parapsychology on the whole and parapsychology conflicts with established science.
* Parapsychology has poor research problems, being concerned with establishing the existence of its subject matter and having practically no theories to create proper research problems.
* While in parts of parapsychology there are attempts to use the methods of science there are also unscientific areas; and in any case parapsychological research can at best qualify as prescientific because of its poor theoretical foundation.
* Parapsychology is a largely isolated research area.

The methods of parapsychologists are regarded by critics, including those who wrote the science standards for the [[California State Board of Education]],<ref name="CaliBoard">{{Cite book |title=Science Framework for California Public Schools |publisher=California State Board of Education |year=1990}}</ref> to be [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]].<ref name=Beyerstein>{{cite web |last=Beyerstein |first=Barry L. |title=Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience |website=Simon Fraser University |year=1995 |url=https://www.sfu.ca/~beyerste/research/articles/02SciencevsPseudoscience.pdf |access-date=2007-07-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070711001032/http://www.sfu.ca/~beyerste/research/articles/02SciencevsPseudoscience.pdf |archive-date=2007-07-11 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Some of the more specific criticisms state that parapsychology does not have a clearly defined subject matter, an easily repeatable experiment that can demonstrate a psi effect on demand, nor an underlying theory to explain the paranormal transfer of information.<ref name=Hyman /> [[James Alcock]] has stated that few of parapsychology's experimental results have prompted interdisciplinary research with more mainstream sciences such as physics or biology and that parapsychology remains an isolated science to such an extent that its very legitimacy is questionable,<ref name=Alcock81>{{Cite book|last=Alcock |first=J. E.|author-link=James Alcock|title=Parapsychology, Science or Magic? |publisher=Pergamon Press |year=1981 |isbn=978-0080257723}}</ref> and as a whole is not justified in being labeled "scientific".<ref name=Alcock98>{{Cite journal|last=Alcock |first=J. E. |title=Science, pseudoscience, and anomaly |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |year=1998|issue=2 |page=303 |doi=10.1017/S0140525X98231189 |volume=21|s2cid=144899504 }}</ref>
Alcock wrote, "Parapsychology is indistinguishable from pseudo-science, and its ideas are essentially those of magic... There is ''no'' evidence that would lead the cautious observer to believe that parapsychologists and paraphysicists are on the track of a real phenomenon, a real energy or power that has so far escaped the attention of those people engaged in "normal" science."<ref>[[James Alcock]]. (1981). ''Parapsychology-Science Or Magic?: A Psychological Perspective''. Pergamon Press. p. 196. {{ISBN|978-0080257730}}</ref>

The scientific community considers parapsychology a pseudoscience because it continues to explore the hypothesis that psychic abilities exist despite a century of experimental results that fail to demonstrate that hypothesis conclusively.<ref name="Cordón">{{Cite book |author=Cordón, Luis A. |title=Popular Psychology: An Encyclopedia |publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group|Greenwood Press]] |location=Westport, Conn |year=2005 |page=[https://archive.org/details/popularpsycholog0000cord/page/182 182] |isbn=978-0313324574 |quote=The essential problem is that a large portion of the scientific community, including most research psychologists, regards parapsychology as a pseudoscience, due largely to its failure to move beyond null results in the way science usually does. Ordinarily, when experimental evidence fails repeatedly to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis is abandoned. Within parapsychology, however, more than a century of experimentation has failed even to conclusively demonstrate the mere existence of paranormal phenomenon, yet parapsychologists continue to pursue that elusive goal. |url=https://archive.org/details/popularpsycholog0000cord/page/182 }}</ref> A panel commissioned by the [[United States National Research Council]] to study paranormal claims concluded that "despite a 130-year record of scientific research on such matters, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extrasensory perception, mental telepathy or 'mind over matter' exercises... Evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence simply does not support the contention that these phenomena exist."<ref>[[Thomas Gilovich]]. (1993). ''How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life''. Free Press. p. 160</ref>

There is also an issue of non-falsifiability associated with psi. On this subject [[Terence Hines]] has written:

{{Blockquote|The most common rationale offered by parapsychologists to explain the lack of a repeatable demonstration of ESP or other psi phenomena is to say that ESP in particular and psi phenomena in general are elusive or jealous phenomena. This means the phenomena go away when a skeptic is present or when skeptical "vibrations" are present. This argument seems nicely to explain away some of the major problems facing parapsychology until it is realized that it is nothing more than a classic nonfalsifiable hypothesis... The use of the nonfalsifiable hypothesis is permitted in parapsychology to a degree unheard of in any scientific discipline. To the extent that investigators accept this type of hypothesis, they will be immune to having their belief in psi disproved. No matter how many experiments fail to provide evidence for psi and no matter how good those experiments are, the nonfalsifiable hypothesis will always protect the belief.<ref>[[Terence Hines]]. (2003). ''Pseudoscience and the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. pp. 117–145. {{ISBN|1573929794}}</ref>}}

[[Mario Bunge]] has written that research in parapsychology for over a hundred years has produced no firm findings or testable predictions. All parapsychologists can do is claim alleged data is anomalous and beyond the reach of ordinary science. The aim of parapsychologists "is not that of finding laws and systematizing them into theories in order to understand and forecast" but to "buttress ancient spiritualist myths or to serve as a surrogate for lost religions."<ref name="Bunge 1983"/>

The psychologist [[David Marks (psychologist)|David Marks]] has written that parapsychologists have failed to produce a single repeatable demonstration of the [[paranormal]] and described psychical research as a pseudoscience, an "incoherent collection of belief systems steeped in fantasy, illusion and error."<ref>[[David Marks (psychologist)|David Marks]]. (1986). ''Investigating the Paranormal''. Nature. Volume 320: 119–124.</ref> However, [[Chris French]], who is not convinced that parapsychology has demonstrated evidence for psi, has argued that parapsychological experiments still adhere to the scientific method and should not be completely dismissed as pseudoscience. "Sceptics like myself will often point out that there's been systematic research in parapsychology for well over a century, and so far the wider scientific community is not convinced."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Martin |first1=Alan |title=Parapsychology: When did science give up on paranormal study? |url=https://www.alphr.com/science/1001390/parapsychology-when-did-science-give-up-on-paranormal-study |website=Alphr |date=19 August 2015 |access-date=20 November 2019}}</ref> French has noted his position is "the minority view among critics of parapsychology".<ref>French, Chris; Stone, Anna. (2014). ''Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience''. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 252–255. {{ISBN|978-1403995711}}</ref>

Philosopher [[Bradley Dowden]] characterized parapsychology as a pseudoscience because parapsychologists have no valid theories to test or reproducible data from their experiments.<ref>[[Bradley Dowden|Dowden, Bradley]]. (1993). ''Logical Reasoning''. Wadsworth Publishing Company. p. 392. {{ISBN|978-0534176884}}</ref>

=== Fraud ===
[[File:James Randi crop.jpg|thumb|right|[[Magic (illusion)|Stage magician]] and [[scientific skeptic|skeptic]] [[James Randi]] has demonstrated that [[Magic (illusion)|magic tricks]] can simulate or duplicate some supposedly psychic phenomena.]]

There have been instances of [[fraud]] in the history of parapsychology research.<ref>[[Henry Gordon (magician)|Henry Gordon]]. (1988). ''Extrasensory Deception: ESP, Psychics, Shirley MacLaine, Ghosts, UFOs''. Macmillan of Canada. p. 13. {{ISBN|0771595395}} "The history of parapsychology, of psychic phenomena, has been studded with fraud and experimental error."</ref> In the late 19th century, the [[Creery Sisters]] (Mary, Alice, Maud, Kathleen, and Emily) were tested by the [[Society for Psychical Research]] and believed them to have genuine psychic ability; however, during a later experiment they were caught utilizing signal codes and they confessed to fraud.<ref>[[Ray Hyman|Hyman, Ray]]. (1989). ''The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research''. Prometheus Books. pp. 99–106. {{ISBN|0879755040}}</ref><ref>[[Gordon Stein|Stein, Gordon]]. (1996). ''The Encyclopedia of the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. p. 688. {{ISBN|1573920215}}]</ref> [[George Albert Smith (film pioneer)|George Albert Smith]] and [[Douglas Blackburn]] were claimed to be genuine psychics by the Society for Psychical Research, but Blackburn confessed to fraud:

{{blockquote|For nearly thirty years the telepathic experiments conducted by Mr. G. A. Smith and myself have been accepted and cited as the basic evidence of the truth of thought transference...

...the whole of those alleged experiments were bogus, and originated in the honest desire of two youths to show how easily men of scientific mind and training could be deceived when seeking for evidence in support of a theory they were wishful to establish.<ref>Andrew Neher. (2011). ''Paranormal and Transcendental Experience: A Psychological Examination'' Dover Publications. p. 220. {{ISBN|0486261670}}</ref>}}

The experiments of [[Samuel Soal]] and [[K. M. Goldney]] of 1941–1943 (suggesting the precognitive ability of a single participant) were long regarded as some of the best in the field because they relied upon independent checking and witnesses to prevent fraud. However, many years later, statistical evidence, uncovered and published by other parapsychologists in the field, suggested that Soal had cheated by altering some of the raw data.<ref name=Alcock81/>{{rp|140–141}}<ref name=Haskell>{{Cite journal|last=Scott |first=C. |author2=Haskell, P. |title="Normal" Explanation of the Soal-Goldney Experiments in Extrasensory Perception |journal=Nature |volume=245 |issue=5419 |pages=52–54 |year=1973 |bibcode=1973Natur.245...52S |doi=10.1038/245052a0|s2cid=4291294 }}</ref><ref>Betty Markwick. (1985). ''The establishment of data manipulation in the Soal-Shackleton experiments''. In [[Paul Kurtz]]. ''A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology''. Prometheus Books. pp. 287–312. {{ISBN|0879753005}}</ref>

In 1974, many experiments by Walter J. Levy, J. B. Rhine's successor as director of the Institute for Parapsychology, were exposed as fraudulent.<ref name="McBurney 2009">McBurney, Donald H; White, Theresa L. (2009). ''Research Methods''. Wadsworth Publishing. p. 60. {{ISBN|0495602191}}</ref> Levy had reported on a series of successful ESP experiments involving computer-controlled manipulation of non-human subjects, including rats. His experiments showed very high positive results. However, Levy's fellow researchers became suspicious about his methods. They found that Levy interfered with data-recording equipment, manually creating fraudulent strings of positive results. Levy confessed to the fraud and resigned.<ref name="McBurney 2009"/><ref>Neher, Andrew. (2011). ''Paranormal and Transcendental Experience: A Psychological Examination''. Dover Publications. p. 144. {{ISBN|0486261670}}</ref>

In 1974, Rhine published the paper ''Security versus Deception in Parapsychology'' in the [[Journal of Parapsychology]], which documented 12 cases of fraud that he had detected from 1940 to 1950 but refused to give the names of the participants in the studies.<ref>Philip John Tyson, Dai Jones, Jonathan Elcock. (2011). ''Psychology in Social Context: Issues and Debates''. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 199. {{ISBN|978-1405168236}}</ref> [[Massimo Pigliucci]] has written:

<blockquote>Most damning of all, Rhine admitted publicly that he had uncovered at least twelve instances of dishonesty among his researchers in a single decade, from 1940 to 1950. However, he flaunted standard academic protocol by refusing to divulge the names of the fraudsters, which means that there is unknown number of published papers in the literature that claim paranormal effects while in fact they were the result of conscious deception.<ref>[[Massimo Pigliucci]]. (2010). ''Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk''. University of Chicago Press. p. 82. {{ISBN|978-0226667867}}</ref></blockquote>

[[Martin Gardner]] claimed to have inside information that files in Rhine's laboratory contain material suggesting fraud on the part of [[Hubert Pearce]].<ref name="Frazier pp. 168-170">[[Kendrick Frazier]]. (1991). ''The Hundredth Monkey: And Other Paradigms of the Paranormal''. Prometheus Books. pp. 168–170. {{ISBN|978-0879756550}}</ref> Pearce was never able to obtain above-chance results when persons other than the experimenter were present during an experiment, making it more likely that he was cheating in some way. Rhine's other subjects could only obtain non-chance levels when they could shuffle the cards, which suggested they used tricks to arrange the order of the [[Zener cards]] before the experiments started.<ref>Lawrie Reznek. (2010). ''Delusions and the Madness of the Masses''. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 54. {{ISBN|978-1442206052}}</ref>

A researcher from [[Tarkio College]] in Missouri, James D. MacFarland, was suspected of falsifying data to achieve positive psi results.<ref name="Frazier pp. 168-170"/> Before the fraud was discovered, MacFarland published two articles in the ''Journal of Parapsychology'' (1937 & 1938) supporting the existence of ESP.<ref name=MacFarland01-1937>{{Cite journal|title=Extra-sensory perception of normal and distorted symbols|journal=Journal of Parapsychology |date=June 1937 |first=J.D.|last=McFarland |issue= 2|pages=93–101 }}</ref><ref name=MacFarland02-1938>{{Cite journal|title=Discrimination shown between experimenters by subjects|journal=Journal of Parapsychology |date=September 1938 |first=James D.|last=McFarland |issue=3 |pages=160–170 }}</ref> Presumably speaking about MacFarland, Louisa Rhine wrote that in reviewing the data submitted to the lab in 1938, the researchers at the Duke Parapsychology Lab recognized the fraud. "...before long they were all certain that Jim had consistently falsified his records... To produce extra hits, Jim had to resort to erasures and transpositions in the records of his call series."<ref>Louisa Rhine. (1983). ''Something Hidden''. McFarland & Company. p. 226. {{ISBN|978-0786467549}}</ref> MacFarland never published another article in the Journal of Parapsychology after the fraud was discovered.

Some instances of fraud amongst [[Spiritualism (movement)|spiritualist]] [[Mediumship|mediums]] were exposed by early psychical researchers such as [[Richard Hodgson (parapsychologist)|Richard Hodgson]]<ref>{{cite book|chapter-url=http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A040457b.htm |title=Hodgson, Richard (1855–1905) Biographical Entry |access-date=2007-08-03 |publisher=Australian Dictionary of Biography, Online Edition|chapter=Hodgson, Richard (1855–1905) }}</ref> and [[Harry Price]].<ref>[[Mary Roach]]. (2010). ''[[Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife]]''. Canongate Books Ltd. pp. 122–130. {{ISBN|978-1847670809}}</ref> In the 1920s, [[Magic (illusion)|magician]] and escapologist [[Harry Houdini]] said that researchers and observers had not created experimental procedures that preclude fraud.<ref name=Houdini>{{Cite book|last=Houdini |first=Harry |title=A Magician Among the Spirits |publisher=Arno Press |year=1987 |isbn=978-0809480708}}</ref>

===Criticism of experimental results===
Critical analysts, including some parapsychologists, are unsatisfied with experimental parapsychology studies.<ref name=Hyman>{{Cite journal|last=Hyman |first=Ray |author-link=Ray Hyman |title=Evaluation of the program on anomalous mental phenomena |journal=The Journal of Parapsychology |volume=59 |issue=1 |year=1995 |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600 |access-date=2007-07-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012170839/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v59/ai_18445600 |archive-date=2007-10-12 }}</ref><ref name=Alcock03>{{Cite journal |last=Alcock |first=James E. |author2=Jahn, Robert G. |title=Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance |journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies |volume=10 |issue=6–7 |pages=29–50 |year=2003 |url=http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf |access-date=2007-07-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070810173433/http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Alcock-editorial.pdf |archive-date=2007-08-10 }}</ref> Some reviewers, such as psychologist [[Ray Hyman]], contend that apparently successful experimental results in psi research are more likely due to sloppy procedures, poorly trained researchers, or methodological flaws rather than to genuine psi effects.<ref name=Akers>{{Cite book |author=Akers, C. |chapter=Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology |title=Advances in Parapsychological Research 4 |publisher=PesquisaPSI |year=1986 |url=http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html |access-date=2007-07-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223348/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances4/7_Methodological_Criticisms.html |archive-date=2007-09-27 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Child |first=I.L. |chapter=Criticism in Experimental Parapsychology |title=Advances in Parapsychological Research 5 |publisher=PesquisaPSI |year=1987 |url=http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html |access-date=2007-07-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223410/http://www.pesquisapsi.com/books/advances5/6_Criticism_in_Experimental.html |archive-date=2007-09-27 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Wiseman |first=Richard |author2=Smith, Matthew |title=Exploring possible sender-to-experimenter acoustic leakage in the PRL autoganzfeld experiments - Psychophysical Research Laboratories |journal=The Journal of Parapsychology |year=1996 |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809 |access-date=2007-07-30 |display-authors=etal |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012170834/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809 |archive-date=2007-10-12 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://archived.parapsych.org/papers/07.pdf|title=The Invisible Gaze: Three Attempts to Replicate Sheldrake's Staring Effects|last=Lobach|first=E.|year=2004|pages=77–90|author2=Bierman, D.|website=Proceedings of the 47th PA Convention|access-date=2007-07-30|archive-date=2011-07-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110727025256/http://archived.parapsych.org/papers/07.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Fellow psychologist [[Stuart Vyse]] hearkens back to a time of data manipulation, now recognized as [[Data dredging|"p-hacking"]], as part of the issue.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vyse |first1=Stuart |author-link=Stuart Vyse|title=P-Hacking Confessions: Daryl Bem and Me |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |date=2017 |volume=41 |issue=5 |pages=25–27 |url=https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/p-hacker_confessions_daryl_bem_and_me |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180805142806/https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/p-hacker_confessions_daryl_bem_and_me |url-status=dead |archive-date=2018-08-05 |access-date=5 August 2018}}</ref> Within parapsychology there are disagreements over the results and methodology as well. For example, the experiments at the PEAR laboratory were criticized in a paper published by the ''[[Journal of Parapsychology]]'' in which parapsychologists independent from the PEAR laboratory concluded that these experiments "depart[ed] from criteria usually expected in formal scientific experimentation" due to "[p]roblems with regard to randomization, statistical baselines, application of statistical models, agent coding of descriptor lists, feedback to percipients, sensory cues, and precautions against cheating." They felt that the originally stated significance values were "meaningless".<ref name="Hansen"/>

A typical measure of psi phenomena is a statistical deviation from chance expectation. However, critics point out that statistical deviation is, strictly speaking, only evidence of a statistical anomaly, and the cause of the deviation is not known. Hyman contends that even if psi experiments that regularly reproduce similar deviations from chance could be designed, they would not necessarily prove psychic functioning.<ref name=Hyman33>{{cite web |url=http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html |title=The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality |access-date=2007-07-02 |last=Hyman |first=Ray |author-link=Ray Hyman |year=1996 |publisher=[[CSICOP]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070519021029/http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html |archive-date=2007-05-19 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Critics have coined the term ''The Psi Assumption'' to describe "the assumption that any significant departure from the laws of chance in a test of psychic ability is evidence that something anomalous or paranormal has occurred...[in other words] assuming what they should be proving." These critics hold that concluding the existence of psychic phenomena based on chance deviation in inadequately designed experiments is ''[[affirming the consequent]]'' or ''[[begging the question]].''<ref name= Carrol>{{cite web|last=Carroll |first=Robert Todd |title=psi assumption |website=Skepdic.com |publisher=The Skeptics Dictionary |year=2005 |url=http://www.skepdic.com/psiassumption.html |access-date=2007-07-30}}</ref>

In 1979, magician and [[debunker]] [[James Randi]] engineered a hoax, now referred to as [[Project Alpha (hoax)|Project Alpha]] to encourage a tightening of standards within the parapsychology community. Randi recruited two young magicians and sent them undercover to [[Washington University in St. Louis|Washington University]]'s McDonnell Laboratory, where they "fooled researchers ... into believing they had paranormal powers." The aim was to expose poor experimental methods and the credulity thought to be common in parapsychology.<ref name="NYTimes" /> Randi has stated that both of his recruits deceived experimenters for three years with demonstrations of supposedly psychic abilities: blowing electric fuses sealed in a box, causing a lightweight paper rotor perched atop a needle to turn inside a bell jar, bending metal spoons sealed in a glass bottle, etc.<ref>Randi, J. (1983) The Project Alpha experiment: Part one: the first two years. ''Skeptical Inquirer'', Summer issue, pp. 24–33 and Randi, J. (1983)The Project Alpha Experiment: Part two: Beyond the Laboratory,” ''Skeptical Inquirer'' Fall issue, pp. 36–45</ref> The hoax by Randi raised ethical concerns in the scientific and parapsychology communities, eliciting criticism even among skeptical communities such as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), which he helped found, but also positive responses from the President of the Parapsychological Association Stanley Krippner. Psychologist Ray Hyman, a CSICOP member, called the results "counterproductive".<ref name="NYTimes">{{cite news|last=Broad |first=William J. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/15/science/magician-s-effort-to-debunk-scientists-raises-ethical-issues.html |title=Magician's Effort To Debunk Scientists Raises Ethical Issues |newspaper=NYTimes.com |date=1983-02-15 |access-date=2014-04-11}}</ref>

===Selection bias and meta-analysis===
[[Selection bias|Selective reporting]] has been offered by critics as an explanation for the positive results reported by parapsychologists. Selective reporting is sometimes called a "file drawer" problem, which arises when only positive study results are made public, while studies with negative or null results are not made public.<ref name="pmid16822164"/> Selective reporting has a compounded effect on [[meta-analysis]], which is a statistical technique that aggregates the results of many studies to generate sufficient statistical [[power (statistics)|power]] to demonstrate a result that the individual studies themselves could not demonstrate at a [[statistical significance|statistically significant]] level. For example, a recent meta-analysis combined 380 studies on psychokinesis,<ref name="pmid16822162"/> including data from the PEAR lab. It concluded that, although there is a statistically significant overall effect, it is inconsistent, and relatively few negative studies would cancel it out. Consequently, [[Publication bias|biased publication]] of positive results could be the cause.<ref name="Smee"/>

Numerous researchers have criticized the popularity of meta-analysis in parapsychology,<ref name="UttsStatisticalScience" /> and is often seen as troublesome even within parapsychology.<ref name="UttsStatisticalScience">{{Cite journal|title=Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology |journal=Statistical Science |year=1991 |first=Jessica |last=Utts |author-link= Jessica Utts |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=363–403|doi=10.1214/ss/1177011577|doi-access=free }}</ref> Critics have said that parapsychologists misuse meta-analysis to create the incorrect impression that statistically significant results have been obtained that indicate the existence of psi phenomena.<ref name=Stenger>{{cite web |last=Stenger |first=Victor J. |author-link=Victor J. Stenger |title=Meta-Analysis and the Filedrawer Effect |website=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry |year=2002 |url=http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/meta-analysis_and_the_filedrawer_effect |access-date=2007-07-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180918091029/https://www.csicop.org/sb/show/meta-analysis_and_the_filedrawer_effect |archive-date=2018-09-18 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Physicist [[Robert L. Park|Robert Park]] states that parapsychology's reported positive results are problematic because most such findings are invariably at the margin of statistical significance and that might be explained by a number of confounding effects; Park states that such marginal results are a typical symptom of [[pathological science]] as described by [[Irving Langmuir]].<ref name="Park 2000"/>

Researcher J. E. Kennedy has said that concerns over meta-analysis in science and medicine also apply to problems present in parapsychological meta-analysis. As a [[post-hoc analysis]], critics emphasize the opportunity the method presents to produce biased outcomes via selecting cases chosen for study, methods employed, and other key criteria. Critics say that analogous problems with meta-analysis have been documented in medicine, where it has been shown different investigators performing meta-analyses of the same set of studies have reached contradictory conclusions.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=A Proposal and Challenge for Proponents and Skeptics of Psi |journal=Journal of Parapsychology |year=2005 |first=J.E. |last=Kennedy |volume=68 |pages=157–167 |url=http://jeksite.org/psi/jp04.htm |access-date=2007-07-29}}</ref>

===Anomalistic psychology===
{{Main|Anomalistic psychology}}

In anomalistic psychology, paranormal phenomena have naturalistic explanations resulting from [[Psychology|psychological]] and [[Physics|physical]] factors, which have sometimes given the impression of paranormal activity to some people when, in fact, there have been none.<ref name="Zusne 1989"/><ref>Nicola Holt, Christine Simmonds-Moore, David Luke, Christopher French. (2012). ''Anomalistic Psychology (Palgrave Insights in Psychology)''. Palgrave Macmillan. {{ISBN|978-0230301504}}</ref> According to the psychologist [[Chris French]]:

{{blockquote|The difference between anomalistic psychology and parapsychology is in terms of the aims of what each discipline is about. Parapsychologists typically are actually searching for evidence to prove the reality of paranormal forces, to prove they really do exist. So the starting assumption is that paranormal things do happen, whereas anomalistic psychologists tend to start from the position that paranormal forces probably don't exist and that therefore we should be looking for other kinds of explanations, in particular the psychological explanations for those experiences that people typically label as paranormal.<ref>{{cite interview |url=http://www.videojug.com/interview/anomalistic-psychology-2 |subject=Chris French |title=Anomalistic Psychology |website=videojug |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130520125500/http://www.videojug.com/interview/anomalistic-psychology-2 |archive-date=2013-05-20}}</ref>}}

While parapsychology has declined, anomalistic psychology has risen. It is now offered as an option in some psychology degree programs. It is also an option on the A2 psychology syllabus in the UK.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.nature.com/soapboxscience/2011/12/19/the-rise-of-anomalistic-psychology-%E2%80%93-and-the-fall-of-parapsychology|title=The rise of anomalistic psychology – and the fall of parapsychology? : Soapbox Science|website=blogs.nature.com}}</ref>

===Skeptic organizations===
Organizations that encourage a critical examination of parapsychology and parapsychological research include the [[Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]], publisher of the ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]'';<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.csicop.org/|title=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry|website=csicop.org|access-date=2007-11-14|archive-date=2014-03-16|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140316042105/http://www.csicop.org/|url-status=dead}}</ref> the [[James Randi Educational Foundation]], founded by illusionist and skeptic James Randi,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.randi.org/ |title=James Randi Educational Foundation |website=randi.org|access-date=2007-11-14}}</ref> and the Occult Investigative Committee of the [[Society of American Magicians]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tophatprod.com/oic/OIC/About.html|title=About the Occult Investigative Committee of The Society of American Magicians|publisher=www.tophatprod.com|access-date=2009-08-18|archive-date=2011-07-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726113704/http://www.tophatprod.com/oic/OIC/About.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> a society for professional [[Magic (illusion)|magicians/illusionists]] that seeks "the promotion of harmony among magicians, and the opposition of the unnecessary public exposure of magical effects."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://magicsam.com/about-s-a-m/brief-history/|title=The Society Of American Magicians|publisher=www.magicsam.com|access-date=2009-08-18|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120901161440/http://magicsam.com/about-s-a-m/brief-history/|archive-date=2012-09-01}}</ref>