| The subject of psychic phenomena and | | | | thepsychic realm. Imagine repeating your experiment in |
| parapsychology arouses ahuge amount of | | | | a hauntedhouse and DEMANDING that the sprite |
| controversy and doubt. This is not unreasonable | | | | appear on cue, just becauseyou are performing the |
| (and probably a good thing), given their extremely | | | | same experiment! |
| checkeredpast. Fake have abounded: false mediums, | | | | If, by its very nature, a experience is extremely rare |
| charlatan mind readers,conjuring tricks passed off as | | | | andunpredictable in nature, it is very hard to use |
| the real thing. The list goes onforever. | | | | Science to saymuch about it at all. |
| Hence, the use of Science should be welcomed in | | | | Science has very little to say about rare and |
| helping to verifysome of the psychic community's | | | | unrepeatable events. Yet, these are the very things |
| claims. | | | | that life itself is full of. |
| However, this can also become unhealthy for several | | | | The Scientific Method has little or nothing to say |
| reasons, andit is equally important to stand guard | | | | regarding rare or unrepeatable events. Nevertheless, |
| against these flaws. Theytoo are all too common. | | | | these are the very things that life itself is filled with. |
| (1) Biased scientists. | | | | It is for this very reason that, initially, the idea that |
| The pitiful truth is that the field of psychic investigation, | | | | ameteorite collision caused the extinction of the |
| with onlyvery rare exceptions, fails to excite or attract | | | | dinosaurswas met with hoots of laughter by the |
| the veryscientific brains. Career-wise, the field of | | | | scientific community. Itwas the very rarity of the event, |
| psychic investigation isextremely badly funded, is nearly | | | | and the fact that no evidencecould be found, that |
| impossible to make a solid,respected career in, and is | | | | caused ridicule to be heaped upon theheads of the |
| the source of endless derision frommainstream | | | | theory's proponents. Until, of course, the craterwas |
| scientists and diehard skeptics. | | | | discovered. |
| Therefore, there is always gigantic pressure | | | | We now also know that the role of the experimenter |
| uponpsychic researchers to justify their own existence. | | | | candramatically change the results of the experiment. |
| At the end ofthe day, they have to find something, | | | | This mayexplain why certain famed psychics seem to |
| somewhere! If, from startto finish, their careers | | | | have their skillsflee them in the cold harsh light of the |
| consisted solely of disproving everysingle psychic | | | | scientificlaboratory. Yet, only a mediocre investigator |
| experience that they were presented with, theywould | | | | would claim thatbecause this is the case, it proves that |
| quickly give up the psychic investigation field fromsheer | | | | there were no psychicphenomena to begin with! |
| boredom or depression. After all, from a purely | | | | (3) Psychic Skeptics. |
| personalstandpoint, why bother? Hence, most of them | | | | This may, in part, explain the James Randi effect. This |
| are intrinsicallybelievers to start with. To put it bluntly, | | | | is apsychic investigator who is a total skeptic on the |
| the probability ishigh that they possess a strong in-built | | | | subject, andwho approaches the subject with this |
| bias in place. | | | | powerful ingrained bias. Hehas issued a challenge to |
| This is not to imply that they would fake results. | | | | pay a large sum of money to anyone whocan |
| However, wemust be aware that, by their very | | | | demonstrate psychic powers to him in a |
| existence in this much malignedfield, there is an invisible | | | | scientificallycontrolled environment. To date, he still has |
| pressure upon these people toproduce something to | | | | his money. |
| validate their own existence. Hence, thissort of science | | | | Now, part of the problem may be that, even if |
| is extremely difficult to maintain in a totallyobjective | | | | somebody isgenuinely psychic, the attitude of the |
| manner. | | | | investigator issufficiently negative to completely |
| Regular academic scientists are always under | | | | extinguish whatever psychicabilities exist, as long as he |
| pressure to justifytheir funding through their results. | | | | is present. Again, a trueinvestigator of any |
| How much worse then forscientists who, for the most | | | | professionalism cannot discount this possibility. |
| part, have no funding, and who areoften the laughing | | | | This is a purely human factor we are talking about, a |
| stock of the scientific community? | | | | function ofthe human brain, and not a measurement of |
| For all of these reasons, the profession of psychic | | | | the boiling point ofwater. Hence, it is entirely plausible |
| investigationcannot and will not attract the very finest | | | | that the negativeattitude of the investigator, plus the |
| minds, at least notat the present times. This is not | | | | undue pressure that thepsychic is placed under as a |
| intended to be an snub toscientists involved in the field. | | | | result of it, could act to diminishthe very effect being |
| It is just reality. The verybest will tend to gravitate | | | | measured. |
| towards "safe" fields where theirability will be | | | | However, the bias of people like Randi and the |
| recognized, and not derided and scoffed at. | | | | organization ofskeptics that calls itself Psicop, is |
| It is a pity, but that is just how the world works at | | | | worrying for anotherreason. These are people who, |
| present. | | | | while claiming to be scientists,are actually approaching |
| (2) The inadequacy of Science. | | | | the entire subject with a deepbias that has nothing to |
| The scientific method has served the human race | | | | do with Science whatsoever. |
| extremely well, but ithas its limits. It cannot do | | | | They are skeptical, because they are skeptical. That's |
| everything. | | | | all. Theyare believers in "Disbelief". It's just the opposite |
| Hence, we must be cautious of trying to apply | | | | end of thespectrum of Belief. That's all. |
| scientific methodswhere they may not work well at all. | | | | There is no scientific reason for it whatsoever. While |
| Such is the manner in whichscience has been elevated | | | | theypretend to be scientific, their approach is more akin |
| to a religion in our world, thisstatement might seem | | | | to areligious dogma; that of treating Science like a |
| almost absurd. | | | | religion. It isoften called "Scientism" for this reason. |
| Yet, there are clear occasions where science cannot | | | | They might claim that there is no proof that psychic |
| measureanything. You cannot measure the emotions | | | | phenomenaexist. Yet, it can be stated with equal |
| of love or anger withscientific instruments. Yet, few | | | | validity that there isno proof that they do NOT. That is |
| would doubt that they exist. | | | | a totally equivalentstatement. As we have seen earlier, |
| You cannot use instruments to provide a printout of | | | | Science cannot PROVE anegative statement. It can |
| what somebodyis thinking. Yet, nobody would deny | | | | only talk about probabilities andlikelihood. And, as we |
| that they DO think, and theyvery often think in words. | | | | have discussed, many psychic phenomenaare |
| You cannot prove scientifically that there are NO toy | | | | intrinsically rare or fragile in their very essence. |
| airplanesin orbit around the planet Mars! It might sound | | | | Like any good zealot, these skeptics like Randi and |
| absurd, butno matter how much you search for them | | | | Psicophave a hidden agenda in "proving" that the world |
| and fail to find them, you | | | | functions theway they think it does. Frankly, a major |
| CANNOT PROVE that they are not there. You can | | | | motivation is FEAR. Morepeople than would like to |
| only say that youhave not found one YET, and that it | | | | admit it are terrified of thepossibility of psychic |
| is extremely unlikely thatthey exist. You might be able | | | | phenomena. What if someone really COULDread your |
| to say that with 99.99999999%certainty. But you can | | | | mind? Every dirty little secret. What if YOU too |
| NEVER say it with 100% certainty. | | | | coulddevelop psychic powers? |
| Science cannot "prove" a negative. | | | | Just imagine what sort of world THAT would be! |
| Thus, in the realm of psychic phenomena, science | | | | Hardly the boringly predictable, ultra-conservative, |
| cannotcategorically state that there is no such thing. | | | | Newtonian |
| You CANNOT | | | | "scientific" universe that these people inhabit. For them, |
| PROVE that ghosts do not exist, for instance. You | | | | it's apossibility too terrible to contemplate. |
| can only saythat, to date, there has been no | | | | In conclusion , it's vital not to be too credulous in |
| conclusive proof that they DO. | | | | examining apsychic experience, or in rushing to accept |
| That is NOT the same as saying that they do NOT. | | | | the claims of the |
| In addition, the scientific method itself has limitations | | | | "professional" investigators in this field. Nevertheless, |
| thatpsychic phenomena would definitely stretch. In | | | | wemust also be extremely cautious of the skeptics |
| science,something has to be repeatable for it to have | | | | who, whilepretending to be scientific, are often better |
| any validity. Inother words, other scientists have to be | | | | viewed asideological zealots than even mediocre |
| able to replicate yourprocess and get exactly the | | | | scientists. |
| same results. | | | | Copyright 2006 Asoka Selvarajah. All Rights |
| However, this is almost certainly doomed to failure in | | | | Reserved. |