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