Editing Parapsychology (section)

===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>