sign in sign up
<<
Home , Astrology, Dowsing, Palmistry, Psychokinesis, Richard Wiseman, Spirit (animating force)

Is the willing? A pentalogue on parapsychology

HIS article started life as a review on extra-sensory perception (ESP) some of Test Your Powers by years ago (Colman, 1987, ch. 7), and T Susan Blackmore and Adam nothing that I have read or heard since Hart-Davis (1995). The author of the re­ then has persuaded me to change it. view, Andrew Colman, felt that one of In spite of this, Susan Blackmore the issues he wished to raise was not and Adam Hart-Davis's (1995) unusual only controversial but also of sufficient and ambitious new book certainly man­ importance and general interest to war­ ages to rekindle interest in the Andrew M. Colman Susan Blackmore rant an open discussion incorporating without sensationalizing or more than one opinion, so he ap­ distorting the evidence. It is really a proached the editor of The Psychologist brief introduction to psychical research with the suggestion of an article-length together with a laboratory manual for propaedeutic exchange of views, along home use. It covers , effects of the lines of Bronfenbrenner, Kessel, Kes­ crystals, dreams and lucid dreaming, sen, and White (1986), in which the , premonitions and precogni­ fundamental issue could be aired and tion, , and planchette discussed among several psychologists phenomena, , and . with an interest in parapsychology. The Each phenomenon is introduced with Christopher C. French editor agreed to the suggestion, and this startling anecdotal evidence, followed article is the result. by a brief though balanced summary of The opening remarks by Andrew M. relevant research evidence, and (a sur­ Colman were sent to Susan Blackmore prise feature that makes the book for a response, and then both Colman's unique) a detailed explanation of how and Blackmore's contributions were to perform a suitably controlled experi­ sent to L. Morris for further ment, together with clear drawings and comment, and so on, so each of the Blue-Peter-type instructions on how to separate contributions to the discussion construct a planchette from a margarine was written in the light of all the ones tub and a ballpoint pen, or how to make Robert L. Morris that preceded it. a deck of ESP cards, a dowsing rod, a box for testing psychokinetic effects on woodlice (no kidding), or other neces­ Andrew M. Andrew M. Colman sary apparatus. The discussions are Most subjects become more interesting superb and the so carefully Colman, Susan the more one learns about them, but the thought out and so clearly explained paranormal seems - in my experience at that this book may well forge general Blackmore, least - to be a striking exception to this readers into amateur experimenters - a rule. People who know little about al­ delightful thought. Robert L. Morris, legedly paranormal phenomena are Now the big question which, like a often intrigued, but the more one learns, 70-year-old rug that has been lying on Richard the less interesting they seem. They all the hearth for too long, deserves a thor­ dissolve under scrutiny, the scientific ough airing. Blackmore and Wiseman, and evidence turns out to be either metho­ Hart-Davis's (1995) readable and bal­ dologically flawed (for example, many anced little introduction to the Christopher C. of Rhine's experiments, Targ and paranormal notwithstanding, what is Puthoff's experiments, the point of it all? Why bother carrying French discuss a most psi Ganzfeld experiments), or out more experiments into these obvi­ merely fraudulent (for example, the ously non-existent phenomena? Take central dilemma of Soal-Goldney experiments, several other astrology, for example. Numerous em­ experiments from Rhine's laboratory), pirical studies have shown that research into the and nothing of significance is left to ex­ astrology is humbug - the Gauquelin ef­ plain. That, at least, was the view I fects are irrelevant to conventional paranormal. formed when I reviewed the evidence astrology, may be interpretable as

The Psychologist August 1996 361 Parapsychology

merely the effects of being born at dif­ and one full one ferent times of the year, and may in any you learn some­ event be artifacts - but the studies were thing new. With pointless anyway, because the theory is no lids the twigs self-evidently ridiculous. Mars is associ­ still jump over the ated with aggression because it is red, water; put lids on but we now know that this is not be­ and they don't. cause of the presence of blood but The inevitable rather of iron-rich clay of the type we conclusion is that have used on earth for building red­ it works only brick universities; Venus represents when YOll know love and beauty because it looks soft the answer in ad­ and pale, but we now know that its vance - and now white mist is made of sulphuric acid; you have really the 12 astrological are as­ learned something sociated with personal qualities by about unconscious virtue of their supposed resemblance to muscular action! a ram, a bull, twins, and so on, but we Similarly, ex­ now know that they would look quite perimenting with different from another angle; and any­ and way they cannot have their claimed palmistry reveals effects in far northern latitudes because our willingness to some of the constellations never even accept generalized rise there. The qualities of the constella­ read­ tions are, in any event, beside the point, ings, and just because the precession of the earth's thinking through a axis has caused all of them to slip out of controlled test of place during the centuries since astrol­ crystal power may ogy was devised by the Babylonians; at be enough to the Spring , for example, the make you laugh at sun is supposed by astrologers to be in the temptation to but is nowadays actually in Pi­ part with good money for a pretty lump interpretations, including self-deception sces. of quartz. or innocent cognitive mistakes, as well What is the point of carrying out What if some psychic claims are as strategies of deception and exploita­ more experiments on this nonsense, or valid? Then doing experiments is the tion by clever frauds. We also for that matter on other allegedly para­ best way to find out. I hope Andrevv investigate the various factors that af­ normal phenomena? The energies of Colman is right, and this book forges a fect the fonnation, development and curious and intelligent researchers, both few more amateur experimenters. Sci­ maintenance of systems. Our ap­ amateur and professional, could surely ence is not just for . Everyone proach thus overlaps considerably with be better spent on less futile pursuits, can benefit from thinking experimen­ Sue Blackmore's and our other col­ such as investigating why people be­ tally - especially about something they leagues in this debate. lieve such things - an interesting care about. We also research the possibility that research area in which the other con­ Finally there are all those there are genuinely new means of envi­ tributors to this discussion have made students who hate experimental design ronmental interaction still to be important contributions. I don't expect and statistics. Using parapsychological uncovered. This is done by exploring that the other contributors will neces­ practicals I have watched the arguments some of the most promising evidence sarily agree with my conclusion, but I change from 'Yes it is!' 'No it isn'tl ' to from other researchers and doing our find it hard to imagine what their 'Could she have heard something7' or best to improve upon it, and we are en­ counter-arguments will be. If someone 'Might he be guessing7' to 'How can we couraged by our own results as well as seriously hypothesized that the moon is find out? ... '. This is why I bother. those of other research units. Methodol­ made of Gorgonzola, would we devote ogy continues to improve, as does our resources to testing it scientifically? If ability to deal with potential fraud in­ not, then why astrology and other pre­ Robert L. Morris terpretations. Our reading of the recent posterous doctrines and theories of the Andrew Colman appears to argue that literature appears to differ from An­ paranormal? studies of an effect are pointless if the drew Colman's. One problem of course theory behind it 'is self-evidently ridicu­ is that opinions about how well or lous'. Unfortunately, it is not alvvays poorly a of studies has been con­ Susan Blackmore easy to achieve a consensus on the ab­ ducted or what constitutes a serious Why bother7 My answer is the reason surdity of a theory, and also, I don't rather than trivial flaw can be some­ we wrote the book. Twenty-five years think we should confuse an effect with what subjective, as any editor, reviewer ago I was convinced that telepathy was its interpretation. The evidence for an or reviewee knows all too well. This is real, astral bodies could fly, and scien­ effect is independent of a given theoreti­ especially a problem in studies of com­ tists were denying the truth. The reason cal interpretation of the effect. This is plex systems, and we have much to I changed my was not the lack of why researchers such as ourselves at learn in this area. I have yet to read a laboratory evidence, nor the sceptics on Edinburgh prefer a bottom-up ap­ study with no Haws at all. Perhaps TV. It was doing experiments for my­ proach, starting with the available data readers can suggest one. self and finding out I was wrong. and evaluating various alternative inter­ It is clear that if any new means of Imagine you have learned to dowse, pretations of those data. interaction do exist, they are not readily and felt the twigs mysteriously jump in We start with the consensually accepted observed in our daily life. Thus much of your hands as you approach water. It is finding that many people have experi­ our work is aimed at examining special not unreasonable to conclude that ences, or observe events, which they circumstances reported to be conducive dowsing works. But when you do an cannot explain conventionally. Our re­ to their manifestation. We look at indi­ with five empty buckets search includes evaluating conventional vidual differences and situational

362 August 1996 The Psychologist Parapsychology

factors, we vary conditions to examine abilities cannot be solved by arguing am not implying that the autoganzfeld their effects upon results, and we try to about whether such phenomena are studies (Bem, 1994; Bem & Honorton, develop testable models such as the theoretically possible. Instead, I agree 1994; Hyman, 1994), say, are tainted noise reduction model that lies behind with Bob Morris's comments on the dif­ with fraud but other subtle methodo­ some ESP research such as the Ganzfeld ficulties of achieving a consensus on the logical problems are a real possibility. I studies. absurdity of a theory and believe that will wait and see. If any tmly new means of interac­ the best way of establishing whether tion do exist, we shall learn most about such abilities are genuine is through their through a multi disciplinary carrying out well designed experiments. Andrew M. Colman approach with diverse but complemen­ Psi proponents argue that these data Bob and Chris say that we can't always tary , and through have already been collected and do in­ reach a consensus about which theories research procedures that have meaning deed support the existence of some are absurd, and Richard says that the for the participants. If no new means form of 'anomalous ' (e.g., of paranormal phenomena can­ exist, then such an approach is also nec­ Bem & Honorton, 1994). Although I do not be decided by theoretical debates. I essary, to build a clear picture of how not endorse these conclusions, the data agree, though I would maintain that <;l.e­ we have been misleading ourselves or are certainly intriguing and deserving monstrably self-contradictory theories have been misled by others. And this of further investigation. can and should be rejected out of hand, picture must be clear to the public as but I don't agree that the lack of consen­ well as the sophisticated researcher. In sus forces the conclusion that we should order to be persuasive, any research Christopher C. therefore always do the research. We programme must give the purported ef­ have no option but to choose which fect the best opportunity to occur, yet French problems to pursue. It would be bad under adequately controlled conditions. I too disagree with Andrew Colman's to treat all hypotheses, even ab­ This has rarely been done. The failure of claim that further parapsychological re­ surd or illogical ones, on an equal trivial but well controlled experiments search is pointless, even though I footing; in fact, it would be impossible, is no more persuasive to the public than suspect that paranormal forces do not because we have limited resources. The the success of exciting but poorly con­ exist. The simple truth is that I may be sensible approach is to pursue promis­ trolled studies. wrong. The list of 'preposterous doc­ ing hypotheses and to ignore worthless One last point. We prefer to avoid trines and theories' which the wider ones. Chris is of course right that 's terms like 'paranormal'. However some initially rejected preposterous doctrines are sometimes researchers (e.g., Irwin, 1994) define only to subsequently embrace is a long tomorrow's accepted facts, but that paranormal events as those that are one, e.g., Wegener's theory of continen­ merely shows how hard it is to form a presently unexplained but are assumed tal drift, Mayer's law of conservation of judgement, not that judgement should to be eventually explainable through , and Boltzman's kinetic theory of or could be avoided. We have no alter­ scientific advances in' our under­ gases. Although this list may be long, native but to choose what hypotheses to standing of the natural world. By this however, the list of apparently crackpot test - we do it all the time. definition, scientists should find explo­ ideas which have not been subsequently ration of paranormal events of validated is much longer. References considerable potential importance. If we On 31 December 1995 the Independent choose to ignore such effects or dismiss on Sunday published a vitriolic attack on Bern, o.J. (1994). Response to Hyman. Psychologi­ them prematurely, then we yield the astrology by . Judging cal Bulletin, 115, 25-27. floor to the and the gullible, by the following week's letters page, Bern, D.J, & Honorton, C (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of in· we all remain tmly ignorant, and sci­ many readers clearly felt that Dawkins formation transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18. ence has failed the public. I think was rejecting astrology simply on the Blackmore, S. & Hart-Davis, A. (1995). Test Your Andrew Colman would agree with this, grounds that he personally thought it Psychic Powers. London: Thorsons. and I suspect that some of our apparent was nonsense. It was easy to see how Bronfenbrenner, u., Kessel, F., Kessen, W. & disagreement may arise because we em­ such impressions could arise. Dawkins White, S. (1986). Toward a critical social history of ploy different definitions of the term wrote: 'How do I know that there is no developmental psychology: A propaedeutic discus­ 'paranormaL truth in astrology? Well, of course I sion. American Psychologist, 41,1218-1230. don't know. I can't prove that there is Collins, H.M & Pinch, T.]. (J982). Frames of nothing in horoscopes' (p.17). Dawkins Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Richard Wiseman would have helped his case consider­ Science. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. I believe that parapsychological re­ ably by referring to the 'numerous Coiman, A.M (1987). Facts, and Frauds in Psychology. London: Hutchinson. search is worthwhile for two reasons. studies which have shown that astrolo­ Hyman, R (1994). Anomaly or artifact> Comments on First, it represents an excellent opportu­ gers simply cannot do what they say Bern and Honorton. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 19-24. nity to evaluate and develop the they can. The Chair of Public Under­ Irwin, H. (1994). An Introduction to Parapsychol­ methods used by science to decide upon standing of Science did little to enhance ogy (2nd edn). London: McFarland. the reality of reported phenomena. For the public understanding of science and Rosenthal, R (1978). How often are numbers example, criticisms of some psi studies much to reinforce the view of scientists wrong? American Psychologist, 33,1005-1008. have helped uncover subtle methodo­ as arrogant and closed-minded. logical and statistical artifacts which can The idea that we can reject claims Dr Colman is a Reader in the Department of Psychology, University of Leicester Leicester LE1 cause spurious results in both parapsy­ without considering the empirical evi­ 7RH. Dr Blackmore is a Senior Lecturer in the chological and psychological studies - dence is simply not good science. There Department of Psychology, University of The see, e.g., Rosenthal's (1978) discussion is plenty of good empirical evidence West of , St Matthias, Oldbwy Court of possible sources of bias in data collec­ that the moon is not made of cheese, Road, Fishponds, Bristol BS16 21P Professor tion/ recording. At a sociological level, but some of the more recent evidence Morris is Professor of Parapsychology in the De­ Collins and Pinch (1982) have examined presented in parapsychology is not that partment of PsychOlogy, University of scientists' reactions to claims of psychic easy to dismiss, as recognized by well­ Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 ability and used these to illustrate how informed sceptics like . The 9/2. Dr Wiseman is a Senior Lecturer in the Psychology Division, University of Hertfordshire, science deals with novel and unusual history of parapsychology, however, College Lane, Hatfield ALlO 9AB. Dr French is a ideas. leads me to be cautious in accepting it Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, Second, believe that . the debate at face value. I was taken in by the Soal­ Goldsmiths College,University of London, New concerning the existence of psychic Goldney data as an undergraduate. I Cross, London SE14 6NW.

The Psychologist August 1996 363