Sep 23, 2021 06:23 PM
(This post was last modified: Sep 23, 2021 06:28 PM by C C.)
https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/09/why-i...doscience/
EXCERPTS (Chris French): I wrote an article for The Skeptic last December in which I discussed my reasons for changing my mind on a number of issues relating to belief in the paranormal...
[...] When I first became a sceptic, I formed a very negative view of parapsychology. Based upon what I was reading, it seemed to me that all parapsychologists were incompetent when it came to skills such as experimental design and statistical analysis. As I got to know more parapsychologists personally, including such intelligent and open-minded individuals as the first holder of the Koestler Chair in Parapsychology, the late Bob Morris, and the current holder, Caroline Watt, I realised that this was not necessarily true.
It is understandable (and indeed perfectly legitimate) for sceptics to highlight examples of poor practice in parapsychology but this can give a very misleading, one-sided impression. Surely it is only fair to take account of good quality work within a discipline as well when judging the discipline as a whole? I dread to think how psychology would fare if it were to be judged only on the basis of the poorest work within the discipline!
What finally got me to revise my opinion regarding the scientific status of parapsychology was reading one particular paper by Marie-Catherine Mousseau. She had taken an empirical approach in addressing the issue by performing a content analysis upon three mainstream journals (such as the British Journal of Psychology and the Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics) and four ‘fringe’ journals (such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Journal of Parapsychology). She had then evaluated the contents with respect to various criteria commonly put forward as means by which science can be distinguished from pseudoscience. The results offered little support for the claim that parapsychology is a pseudoscience.
For example, there was no evidence of parapsychology demonstrating “an emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation”. In fact, almost half of the articles in the fringe journals reported disconfirmation of hypotheses compared to precisely none in the mainstream journals. Similarly, no evidence was found for an “unchanging body of belief”, given that 17% of the articles in the fringe journals dealt with theory and proposed new hypotheses.
Elsewhere, I summarised some of Mousseau’s other findings as follows:
Was there evidence of an “excessive reliance on anecdotal and testimonial evidence to substantiate claims” as seen in other pseudosciences? No. “43% of articles in the fringe journals deal with empirical matters and almost one-fourth report laboratory experiments.” (Mousseau, 2003, p. 273). Was there an “absence of self-correction”? No. Parapsychology seems to score higher on this criterion than mainstream sciences: “… 29% of the fringe-journal articles […] discuss progress of research, problems encountered, epistemological issues.
This kind of article is completely absent from the mainstream sample.” (p. 275). What about connections to other fields of research? Mousseau (2003) found that over a third of citations in fringe journals were of articles in mainstream science journals, such as physics, psychology, and neuroscience journals. In contrast, mainstream science articles overwhelmingly cited articles in the same field (90% of the time in the sample as a whole but 99% in the physics journals).
On the basis of this analysis, I do not think it would be fair to label parapsychology as a pseudoscience.
First and foremost, science is a set of methods for attempting to gain veridical knowledge. It is not an established body of ‘facts’ that must never be questioned. Personally, I no longer believe in paranormal phenomena such as precognition, telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition.
I could be wrong, of course, and maybe one day new evidence of a robust and replicable paranormal phenomenon will be presented that will lead me to change my mind. After almost a century and a half of systematic research, I’m not holding my breath.
Along with a few other critics of parapsychology, such as Richard Wiseman, Susan Blackmore, the late James Randi, and others, I have invested a lot of time and effort over the years in directly testing many paranormal claims, to date without ever obtaining compelling positive evidence to support such claims. It would be hard to deny that at those times we are directly engaged in parapsychological investigations – and we are doing so scientifically... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS (Chris French): I wrote an article for The Skeptic last December in which I discussed my reasons for changing my mind on a number of issues relating to belief in the paranormal...
[...] When I first became a sceptic, I formed a very negative view of parapsychology. Based upon what I was reading, it seemed to me that all parapsychologists were incompetent when it came to skills such as experimental design and statistical analysis. As I got to know more parapsychologists personally, including such intelligent and open-minded individuals as the first holder of the Koestler Chair in Parapsychology, the late Bob Morris, and the current holder, Caroline Watt, I realised that this was not necessarily true.
It is understandable (and indeed perfectly legitimate) for sceptics to highlight examples of poor practice in parapsychology but this can give a very misleading, one-sided impression. Surely it is only fair to take account of good quality work within a discipline as well when judging the discipline as a whole? I dread to think how psychology would fare if it were to be judged only on the basis of the poorest work within the discipline!
What finally got me to revise my opinion regarding the scientific status of parapsychology was reading one particular paper by Marie-Catherine Mousseau. She had taken an empirical approach in addressing the issue by performing a content analysis upon three mainstream journals (such as the British Journal of Psychology and the Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics) and four ‘fringe’ journals (such as the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Journal of Parapsychology). She had then evaluated the contents with respect to various criteria commonly put forward as means by which science can be distinguished from pseudoscience. The results offered little support for the claim that parapsychology is a pseudoscience.
For example, there was no evidence of parapsychology demonstrating “an emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation”. In fact, almost half of the articles in the fringe journals reported disconfirmation of hypotheses compared to precisely none in the mainstream journals. Similarly, no evidence was found for an “unchanging body of belief”, given that 17% of the articles in the fringe journals dealt with theory and proposed new hypotheses.
Elsewhere, I summarised some of Mousseau’s other findings as follows:
Was there evidence of an “excessive reliance on anecdotal and testimonial evidence to substantiate claims” as seen in other pseudosciences? No. “43% of articles in the fringe journals deal with empirical matters and almost one-fourth report laboratory experiments.” (Mousseau, 2003, p. 273). Was there an “absence of self-correction”? No. Parapsychology seems to score higher on this criterion than mainstream sciences: “… 29% of the fringe-journal articles […] discuss progress of research, problems encountered, epistemological issues.
This kind of article is completely absent from the mainstream sample.” (p. 275). What about connections to other fields of research? Mousseau (2003) found that over a third of citations in fringe journals were of articles in mainstream science journals, such as physics, psychology, and neuroscience journals. In contrast, mainstream science articles overwhelmingly cited articles in the same field (90% of the time in the sample as a whole but 99% in the physics journals).
On the basis of this analysis, I do not think it would be fair to label parapsychology as a pseudoscience.
First and foremost, science is a set of methods for attempting to gain veridical knowledge. It is not an established body of ‘facts’ that must never be questioned. Personally, I no longer believe in paranormal phenomena such as precognition, telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition.
I could be wrong, of course, and maybe one day new evidence of a robust and replicable paranormal phenomenon will be presented that will lead me to change my mind. After almost a century and a half of systematic research, I’m not holding my breath.
Along with a few other critics of parapsychology, such as Richard Wiseman, Susan Blackmore, the late James Randi, and others, I have invested a lot of time and effort over the years in directly testing many paranormal claims, to date without ever obtaining compelling positive evidence to support such claims. It would be hard to deny that at those times we are directly engaged in parapsychological investigations – and we are doing so scientifically... (MORE - missing details)
