Editing Parapsychology (section)

===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>