Editing Society for Psychical Research (section)

===Criticism from skeptics===
[[File:Trevor H. Hall.png|upright|thumb|[[Trevor H. Hall]], a critic of the SPR]]
Skeptics have criticised members of the SPR for having motives liable to impair scientific objectivity. According to SPR critics [[John Grant (author)|John Grant]] and [[Eric Dingwall]] (a member of the SPR), early SPR members such as [[Henry Sidgwick]], [[Frederic W. H. Myers]], and [[William F. Barrett|William Barrett]] hoped to cling to something spiritual through psychical research.<ref name="Ding">[[Eric Dingwall|Dingwall, Eric]] (1985). ''The Need for Responsibility in Parapsychology: My Sixty Years in Psychical Research''. In [[Paul Kurtz]]. ''A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology''. Prometheus Books. pp. 161–174. {{ISBN|0-87975-300-5}} Author John Grant stated that prominent member F. W. H. Myers held that telepathy, according to some speculative explanations, might, in demonstrating that mind could communicate with mind apart from recognised channels, provide evidence supporting the proposition that human personality could continue after the death of the body. "Thus the supernatural might be proved by science, and psychical research might become, in the words of Sir William Barrett, a handmaid to religion."</ref><ref>[[John Grant (author)|Grant, John]] (2015). ''Spooky Science: Debunking the Pseudoscience of the Afterlife''. Sterling Publishing. pp. 23–24. {{ISBN|978-1-4549-1654-3}}</ref> Myers stated that “[T]he Society for Psychical Research was founded, with the establishment of thought-transference—already rising within measurable distance of proof—as its primary aim.”<ref>Woerlee, G. M. (2011). [http://neardth.com/consciousness-beyond-life.php "Review of Consciousness Beyond Life by Pim van Lommel"]. Retrieved 2016-12-19.</ref> Defenders of the SPR have stated in reply that “a ‘will to believe’ in post-mortem survival, telepathy and other scientifically unpopular notions, does not necessarily exclude a ‘will to know’ and thus the capacity for thorough [[self-criticism]], methodological rigour and relentless suspicion of errors.”<ref>{{cite journal |last=Sommer |first=Andreas |date=2011 |title=HamiltonTrevor, Immortal Longings: F.W.H. Myers and the Victorian Search for Life after Death (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2009), pp. 359, hardback |isbn=978-1845-401238 |journal=Medical History |volume=55 |issue=3 |pages=433–435 |doi=10.1017/S0025727300005597 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

The skeptic and physicist [[Victor J. Stenger]] has written:

{{blockquote| The SPR ... on occasion exposed blatant cases of fraud even their own credulous memberships could not swallow. But their journals have never succeeded in achieving a high level of credibility in the eyes of the rest of the scientific community. ... most articles usually begin with the assumption that psychic phenomena are demonstrated realities.<ref>[[Victor J. Stenger|Stenger, Victor J.]](1990). ''Physics and Psychics: The Search for a World Beyond the Senses''. Prometheus Books. pp. 161–162. {{ISBN|978-0-87975-575-1}}</ref>}}

[[Ivor Lloyd Tuckett]] an author of an early skeptical work on psychical research wrote that although the SPR have collected some valuable work, most of its active members have "no training in psychology fitting them for their task, and have been the victims of pronounced bias, as sometimes they themselves have admitted."<ref>[[Ivor Lloyd Tuckett|Tuckett, Ivor Lloyd]]. (1911). [https://archive.org/stream/evidenceforsuper00tuckrich#page/8/mode/2up ''The Evidence for the Supernatural: A Critical Study Made with "Uncommon Sense"'']. K. Paul, Trench, Trübner. pp. 8–9</ref> [[Trevor H. Hall]], an ex-member of the Society for Psychical Research, criticised SPR members for their "credulous and obsessive wish... to believe." Hall also claimed SPR members "lack knowledge of deceptive methods."<ref>Spangenburg, Ray; Moser, Diane (2004). ''The Age of Synthesis: 1800–1895''. Facts on File. p. 134. {{ISBN|978-0816048533}}</ref>

Writer [[Edward Clodd]] asserted that the SPR members [[William F. Barrett]] and [[Oliver Lodge]] had insufficient competence for the detection of fraud and suggested that their spiritualist beliefs were based on [[magical thinking]] and primitive superstition.<ref>[[Edward Clodd|Clodd, Edward]]. (1917). [https://archive.org/stream/questionifmandie00cloduoft#page/265/mode/2up ''The Question: A Brief History and Examination of Modern Spiritualism'']. Grant Richards, London. pp. 265–301</ref> Clodd described the SPR as offering "barbaric spiritual philosophy", and characterised the language of SPR members as using such terms as "subliminal consciousness" and "telepathic energy," as a disguise for "bastard supernaturalism."<ref>[[Roger Luckhurst|Luckhurst, Roger]] (2002). ''The Invention of Telepathy: 1870–1901''. Oxford University Press. p. 163. {{ISBN|978-0199249626}}</ref>

A 2004 [[Psychology|psychological]] study involving 174 members of the Society for Psychical Research completed a delusional ideation questionnaire and a [[deductive reasoning]] task. The study found that "individuals who reported a strong belief in the paranormal made more errors and displayed more delusional [[Ideation (idea generation)|ideation]] than skeptical individuals". The study also claims that reasoning abnormalities may have a causal role in the formation of paranormal belief.<ref>Lawrence, E. & Peters, E. (2004). ''Reasoning in believers in the paranormal''. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 192, 727–733.</ref> 

Some skeptical members have resigned from the SPR. [[Eric Dingwall]] resigned and wrote "After sixty years' experience and personal acquaintance with most of the leading parapsychologists of that period I do not think I could name half a dozen whom I could call objective students who honestly wished to discover the truth. The great majority wanted to prove something or other: They wanted the phenomena into which they were inquiring to serve some purpose in supporting preconceived theories of their own."(1985)<ref name="Ding"/>