What’s wrong with this list?
- Paleontological Society
- Parapsychological Association
- Pattern Recognition Society
- Phi Beta Kappa Society
- Phi Sigma Biological Sciences Honor Society
- Phycological Society of America
Seems at first glance like a list of scientific professional organizations, or at least the subset of such a list beginning with the letter “P.” And indeed it is — it’s an excerpt from the list of Affiliates of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
But take a look at that second entry — the Parapsychological Association? Is that what it sounds like? Indeed it is — “the international professional organization of scientists and scholars engaged in the study of ‘psi’’ (or ‘psychic’) experiences, such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, psychic healing, and precognition (“parapsychology”).”
The only problem is, parapsychology is not science. It’s pseudoscience. From a completely blank-slate perspective, one can certainly pose scientific questions about whether the human mind can tell the future or read minds or move objects around without touching them. The thing is, we know the answer: no. The possibilities have been investigated and found wanting; more straightforwardly, they would violate the known laws of physics. Alchemy was science once, but it’s not any more. Not all hypotheses are equally worthy of our respect and attention; sometimes we learn that a particular idea doesn’t work, and move on with our lives.
So what in the world is the Parapsychological Association doing as part of the AAAS? Benefiting from the implication of respectability, is the obvious answer. Note that “Affiliate of the AAAS” is displayed prominently on the PA homepage — an endorsement that, say, the Paleontological Society or the Phycological Society of America (not misspelled, I swear) didn’t deem worth of such prominent display.
Apparently the PA was founded by J.B. Rhine in 1957, and became affiliated with the AAAS in 1969 thanks to the advocacy of then-AAAS-president Margaret Mead. In 1979 John Wheeler campaigned to have it kicked out, but his effort failed.
The AAAS is a useful organization, and it’s a shame to see them associate their good name with pseudoscience. Their annual meeting begins to day in Boston, and it’s always a fun event, a great way to catch up with some of the major themes in all areas of science. None of those themes should involve reading people’s thoughts or bending spoons with one’s mind. I hope the AAAS can gently extract itself from this relationship.
Re my comment #65, point (2.) To clarify, I meant that the post-collision vector-pair of the trajectories of exiting particles can be rotated without violating laws of physics. Of course, that looks the same in the center of momentum frame, but different in other frames. It would influence what happened later, without “cheating” in terms of physical laws. Whether that happens or not in real life, it is still false to state that non-statistical interference in causality has to violate laws of physics.
As for the claim that there aren’t any results demonstrating ESP: First of all, it may happen sometimes and not others (and some phenomena are like that, we can’t ensure that something is conveniently replicable just because it is, well, convenient if it is.) Our wanting that doesn’t constrain the universe (but of course it does make it harder to find reasons to believe.) Second, how does a person find out that there aren’t any such successful results, in principle and in practice? If you want to find evidence (credible claims, actually) you can search for citations of work demonstrating that. But how do you survey adequately to see that there *isn’t* any such finding? What kind of process can lead to that? I have looked at reports of studies showing better than average “hits” in ganzfeld studies, etc. I don’t know if that’s what happened, but what makes it appropriate for me to claim “no evidence” instead of “I don’t know of any, I am waiting for some good claims before I am impressed” etc?
From one of the first abstracts in last year’s conference linked by prof Baez:
IS LONG-DISTANCE PSYCHOKINESIS POSSIBLE IN OUTER SPACE?
It is shown that the results of different experiments on both long-range psychokinesis and Mrs.
Kulagina’s influencing targets can be explained on the basis of a model of superfluid physical
vacuum if one assumes that the psychic’s effort is ‘transmitted’ to the target by means of spin
processes in the vacuum. Spin processes can propagate through the superfluid physical vacuum
provided the vacuum is in a perturbed state. The excitation of the vacuum is performed by
quantum entities such as elementary particles or photons. If the concentration of the quantum
entities in the vacuum is insufficient, the psychic’s effort will not be transmitted through the
vacuum. This can account for the fact that Mrs. Kulagina was able only to mentally move the
target placed in a vessel while the air pressure in the vessel exceeded ca. 10-3
mm Hg. Provided
that the long distance psychokinesis and the phenomena produced by the Russian psychic Mrs.
Kulagina have the same physical nature and the model of the superfluid physical vacuum
describes these phenomena, it is reasonable to suppose the following. If the concentration of
quantum objects, such as photons or elementary particles, is sufficiently small in outer space (the
pressure is
I know probably that no one will ever read that, but anyway I think it is still worth telling it:
There is no evicence(battle tested, as Wheeler says) of anything more than what Physics textbooks says. If there were some, then you could do real lab test to see what is it.
We need to remember that what we call parapsychology today has a history that is far older than the scientific method we demand to verify it. The elements of parapsychology have been interlaced with our consciousness since the first homo sapiens and the attempt to oust it from true knowledge is logically doomed to fail.
I fail to see what’s wrong with a organisation dedicated to study Algae… they are a fascinating organisms
More on those spots in the vision;
In highschool, there was this girl…. One morning there was this large spot in my vision and I sensed it was her. There was a line running through it, drawing it toward me. The result was a classic Valentine heart.
Yeah, that’s the problem with a lot of modern parapsychological manifestations. They’re icky and feely and rather useless for making money.
That said, testing this in a controlled university environment runs counter to the regular facilitation of parapsychological phenomena. Rather, these scientists should set up information channels to pick up when anybody on campus experienced parapsychology. Get out in the field, it’s the only way.
Thank you for this ammunition. I’ve been fighting for years to have my own scientific specialty recognized (ExoPodiatry) and this will allow me to make the equivalent treatment argument.
Coin,
Money isn’t god. It’s a tool. We create it and we define it.
http://www.exterminatingangel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=203&Itemid=118
Sam, excuse my ignorance: What is ExoPodiatry and how does it manifest?
I am personally highly skeptical of parapsychological claims. However, my intellectual integrity humbles me. The results of the Innsbruck Quantum Teleportation experiments (http://physicist.org/png/html/teleport.htm) ought to make us a bit more tentative in pronouncing the inviolability of physical “laws” and a bit more circumspect about our certainty vis-a-vis the known effects of these forces.
That said, what is important about scientific inquiry into any field, is not to be found in what subject we choose to study, what is vital about the scientific enterprise is the methodology used in our inquiry. In any case, we must be ever vigilant not to compromise the rigor of that inquiry in the service of a preexisting prejudice or wish for a predetermined outcome. Science history is littered with the bad results of imposing on the human mind “premature curiosity satisfaction” by means other than rigorous scientific inquiry.
75. Raymond: Yet, people all over the place repeatedly get funding for silly studies that, at least at the time, are considered “respectable” (whatever that word really means).
Parapsychology included. It’s been funded. Experiments have been performed. As someone mentioned, the CIA and Army are among those who have sponsored research. Why did they drop their programs? The current debate is not over whether poorly-informed and misguided individuals should be allowed to throw their money away funding further studies, but whether AAAS should lend their respect to such an unproductive field.
I find it very amusing to hear somebody claim this, especially when you have so many areas of physics that have been investigated (for how long?) that never actually lead to anything but dead end theories about explaining the world using “string theory” or “ether.”
String theory has been harshly criticized on precisely those grounds, so to appeal to string theory to escape criticism is counterproductive. There is a noticable difference: string theory is very difficult to test experimentally. In parapsychology, the experiments have been done, and replicable results have failed to appear.
Also, along the lines of Feynman, how exactly have these phenomena been studied?
In parapsychology, typically someone performs an informal, poorly-controlled exploratory study. They find something that interests them. When the experimental controls are tightened sufficiently to eliminate sources of error, including cheating, the results fail to continue. Frequently the proponents continue to insist that the early, poorly-controlled results still count.
So, until the day strolls on by where we have investigated such occurrences thoroughly enough using proper experimentation,
Which in parapsychology was decades ago.
Perhaps there is some unique physical process associated with such events that may not be evident in other studies or situations. Or perhaps,…
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Perhaps porcine aeronauts will emanate from one of your bodily orifices. I suggest you establish the existence of the phenomenon before you explore the causes of it.
Not to mention, what are you actually afraid of with these studies?
Raymond is out of rational arguments, and thus is reduced to making erroneous appeals to the emotional state of his opponents. Raymond needs to grow up.
Something to chew on: The End of PEAR
I have one thing to say to Reginald Selkirk: Bravo!!
Pingback: Telekinesis and Quantum Field Theory | Cosmic Variance
Of course not; you don’t have any.
What a depressing comment thread. I can only suggest to these people that they get out more if their lives are so empty that they need to live in a fantasy world.
Maybe the burden of proof is too much to bear?
I generally second what Reginald Selkirk wrote above.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Another Coin wrote:
We need to remember that what we call parapsychology today has a history that is far older than the scientific method we demand to verify it. The elements of parapsychology have been interlaced with our consciousness since the first homo sapiens and the attempt to oust it from true knowledge is logically doomed to fail.
Whether or not an argument like this might mean anything in another discussion, you might want to notice that this discussion is not about whether parapsychology is “True Knowledge”, but whether a particular parapsychology association should be given endorsement by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Your attempt to depict parapsychology as something somehow outside and superior to “the scientific method”, and your vague apparent connection between parapsychology and some kind of unspecified older [mystical/religious?] concept outside science, therefore doesn’t seem very helpful in this context since you seem to implicitly grant that parapsychology, “True Knowledge” or not, is not science.
If we accept what you say at face value then this seems then to be an argument that the AAAS shouldn’t endorse the PA– if accepting parapsychology means taking sides between the scientific method and [something “far older”], then the AAAS, given who and what they are, are obliged to side with the scientific method.
That said, testing this in a controlled university environment runs counter to the regular facilitation of parapsychological phenomena.
Normally a statement like this is interpreted as evidence parapsychological phenomena don’t exist. If the effect disappears when you try to study it in a rigorous manner, this is a point against the effect, not against the idea of studying things in a controlled setting.
Hi, real Coin (I didn’t know I took your name),
My point was exactly that AAAS shouldn’t endorse the PA, because they are incompatible in a number of ways.
But what standards do you apply to ‘normal’ psychology? What laboratory tests have been made that can prove what makes a person do something? Rigorous, objective testing of a person’s psyche is impossible – you need to do it without the subject knowing about it.
Statements about parapsychology being real have been controversial for about 100 years (discounting religion entirely), but the experiences are too valuable and too personal to rest on the scientific method.
You have to call a _lot_ of people, and even peoples, basically insane if you claim their experiences are not real. Which is fine with me, btw.