Image: BRAD HINES
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
In the first half of the 19th century the theory of evolution was mired in conjecture until Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace compiled a body of evidence and posited a mechanism—natural selection—for powering the evolutionary machine.
The theory of continental drift, proposed in 1915 by Alfred Wegener, was not accepted by most scientists until the 1960s, with the discovery of midoceanic ridges, geomagnetic patterns corresponding to continental plate movement, and plate tectonics as the driving motor.
Data and theory. Evidence and mechanism. These are the twin pillars of sound science. Without data and evidence, there is nothing for a theory or mechanism to explain. Without a theory and mechanism, data and evidence drift aimlessly on a boundless sea.
For more than a century, claims have been made for the existence of psi, or psychic phenomena. In the late 19th century organizations such as the Society for Psychical Research were begun to employ rigorous scientific methods in the study of psi, and they had world-class scientists in support, including none other than Wallace (Darwin was skeptical). In the 20th century psi periodically appeared in serious academic research programs, from Joseph B. Rhine's experiments at Duke University in the 1930s to Daryl J. Bem's research at Cornell University in the 1990s.
In January 1994, for example, Bem and his late University of Edinburgh parapsychologist colleague Charles Honorton published "Does Psi Exist? Replicable Evidence for an Anomalous Process of Information Transfer" in the prestigious review journal Psychological Bulletin. Conducting a meta-analysis of dozens of published experiments, the authors concluded that "the replication rates and effect sizes achieved by one particular experimental method, the ganzfeld procedure, are now sufficient to warrant bringing this body of data to the attention of the wider psychological community." (A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results from studies to look for an overall effect, even if the results from the individual studies are insignificant; the ganzfeld procedure places the "receiver" in a room with Ping-Pong ball halves over the eyes and headphones over the ears playing white noise and the "sender" in another room psychically transmitting visual images.)
Despite the evidence for psi (subjects had a hit rate of 35 percent, when 25 percent was predicted by chance), Bem and Honorton lamented that "most academic psychologists do not yet accept the existence of psi, anomalous processes of information or energy transfer (such as telepathy or other forms of extrasensory perception) that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms."
Until psi finds its Darwin, it will continue to drift on the fringes of science.
Why don't scientists accept psi? Bem has a stellar reputation as a rigorous experimentalist and has presented statistically significant results. Aren't scientists supposed to be open to changing their minds when presented with new data and evidence? The reason for skepticism is that we need replicable data and a viable theory, both of which are missing in psi research.
Data. The meta-analysis and ganzfeld techniques have been challenged. Ray Hyman of the University of Oregon determined that there were inconsistencies in the experimental procedures used in different ganzfeld experiments (which were lumped together in Bem's meta-analysis as if they used the same procedures). He also pointed out flaws in the target randomization process (the sequence in which the visual targets were sent to the receiver), resulting in a target-selection bias. Richard Wiseman of the University of Hertfordshire in England conducted a meta-analysis of 30 more ganzfeld experiments and found no evidence for psi, concluding that psi data are nonreplicable.
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add Comment“The deeper reason scientists remain unconvinced of psi is that there is no theory for how psi works.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarl Jung was convinced that we all shared the same consciousness and it was this theory that lead to the Unconscious Mind. He felt the Unconscious Mind could be tapped at any point at anytime because we live in a shared universe.
Your article assumes that thought is like packets of information that are sent out by the sender and received by the receiver. Possibly, but it does not explain why people have prophetic visions and dreams. I dreamt of 9/11, the dream was so clear yet I had no idea what the significance of the dream until 11 months and 9 days later.
Best for 2011!
There is a plausible mechanism, entanglement. This depends on the brain being, in part, a quantum computing device.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother plausible mechanism is that consciousness, the required observer needed to collapse the quantum wave equation into a specific state from all states is fundamental to physics. That would imply that our consciousness experience is a limited or specific form of the general case of consciousness pervading everything.
I read the Bem 2010 paper. It passes all requirements for publication. I would pass it even if I disagreed with his conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhilosophically, the concept of quantum entanglement might seem to be applicable in explaining remote information sharing. However, physically, I think that quantum entanglement requires a common emission source for all detected particles. IMO, this relates the singular emitted energy wave physically being spatially partitioned into multiply directed wavefronts. Are you aware of any example of quantum entanglement that does not arise from a singular energy emission?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case, there is no known or detectable energy emission shared between ESP subjects, thus there can physically be no common information shared or exchanged.
Perhaps we are surrounded by some physical medium containing common information that can be extracted, but without physical evidence of anything resembling this, not scientist should 'believe' in it.
Sorry, but Mr. Shermer is incorrect that an underlying theory is necessary for the existence of a phenomena to be scientifically acceptable. For example, the existence of a mechanism allowing a person to navigate reliably even in fog and total darkness was universally accepted hundreds of years before any acceptable explanation was proposed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with psychic phenomena is not that no one has proposed plausible explanations, but that the evidence itself disappears as soon as a skeptical and careful experimenter tries to replicate the so-called discovery. Given the vast amount of data showing the absence of these sort of phenomena, scientists are correct to discount any claims until the proponents can present something as demonstrable as the magnetic compass to support their claims. Which is about as likely as Elvis Presley being discovered alive and living in a commune with bigfoot and little green men from Mars.
I quote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn his book "Quantum Reality, Nick Herbert considers the fact that our bodies form a connected part of that single entity, the universe: "Physicists have discovered that the very atoms of our bodies are woven out of a common superluminal fabric". He then proceeds to quote Einstein who realised the social implications of the illusion of separateness: "A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as someone separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
What we know is how we can create things that we know are entangled. That does not, however, preclude things we don't know are entangled from being so.
I can't go farther than that. But, I remember talking to an old friend of Werner Heisenberg 20 years ago. He told me that he had asked Werner in the 1950s why he did not extend uncertainty farther than he did. Werner told him that he didn't want to get his career hung up in epistemology.
The correct people for judging the results of PSI experiments are professional stage magicians who are skilled in the art of deceiving people, it is surprising how simple the communication channels are once one knows of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to thank Michael Shermer for the moderation of his comments. Of course he is correct that scientists will be skeptical until they can see a mechanism. Still, the gathering of good data will be necessary to the development of a rigorous theory, so I applaud Daryl Bem for his courage and dedication to the truth, putting his reputation on the line for something that seems to be a lightning rod for ridicule.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI happen to be firmly convinced that psi phenomena occur because of my own experiences and those of many friends and colleagues. A long time ago I decided to compare my experiences with others, so whenever I met someone who did not believe such events were possible, I would ask them if they had ever experienced something that by their own standards could not possibly happen. More often than not, they would remember something that they had previously simply dismissed as "just one of those things."
I want to ask, "Just one of WHAT things?" How can a rational person dismiss an entire class of experiences on the basis of the irrational belief that we already know how everything works.
To me one of the greatest PSI mysteries is consciousness itself. How can jiggling atoms produce the kind of awareness that Hindus call Atman? I am not simply talking about thought, because thought is just processing, which any computer can do. How does a physical system produce awareness? How does our visual system produce the experience of "redness?" This is not a computational question, but rather a metaphysical question.
If you don't understand what I mean, perhaps you are not experiencing the kind of awareness that I am talking about. In that case I cannot expect you to answer the question. It would be like asking a person blind from birth to explain the experience of sight.
The lack of a theory may not be necessary for gathering data, but it would sure help gather the data most relevant to the theory. Note that I don't say the lack of a "TRUE" theory. After all, Lamarck saw the evolution of animals and proposed a theory that turned out to be mostly untrue. Even Newton's theory of gravity turned out to be not quite true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo here are a couple of theories that could form the basis for gathering relevant data.
1. The data found by Bem say, in effect, that studying after a test can help pass the test. Quantum physics says that on an atomic level, forward events are not differentiable from reverse events. Experiments have found that it is not only particles that form interference patterns such as are found in double slit experiments, but also molecules the size of small peptides. Put these two ideas together, and perhaps that means that some molecular processes inside neurons are smeared in time, and extend some distance into the past. I see no obvious upper limit for the size of structures that may work this way.
2. Considering the vast amount of anecdotal reports of psi events, such as visions of departed relatives, premonitions, etc., and then considering the way PSI research seems to fall apart when analyzed very thoroughly, perhaps there is a reason that we are not supposed to know how things work, or that they work that way at all. Consider an actor on a stage, in a play in which the plot has sufficient holes that we know it could not really happen that way. No matter how much you ask the CHARACTER
about those holes, he or she will insist that it is just fine, there is no hole. But then get the ACTOR offstage, and ask about it, and he or she will just roll his eyes and say, "It's just a play, get over it." The point is that we are not supposed to notice that there are holes in the plot. We just have a private chuckle and move on. Even when strange magical phenomena occur in the play, we just suspend our disbelief and let it be. When a character in the play points it out, the reason is that the author is pointing out that magical things can happen, and maybe this isn't really the ultimate reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was fun. Anybody else have any nice theories to help gather data?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can use telepathy, you can find me under "telepathy-vinko-rajic.blogspotDOTcom" .
I can exchange voice and videos messages , smell and bad and good filings with people around ,
people can move muscles on my body from distance and much more.
People in some countries found a mad fun , they collected money and they finance some mad psycho to stalk on me
day and night. Maybe psycho can get 50 000 hours paid and earn few hundred thousand Euro but I have to spend
over 10 years in poverty because of this. Number one he use it to terrorize me all the time, I have no job
and no normal sleep, I am mad , sick and tired of this.
People in some countries( Sweden, Norway) are boycotting me , I have no human rights there , can not get job and no friends
I think they are taking part in financing this show.
I have to find a way to protect me of telepathy. Is it any medicine that could stop this?
I was thinking that some metal shield should stop brain waves.
Any idea what can I do?