Labels: calls for participants
Labels: calls for participants
When it comes to evaluating parapsychological phenomena, a Catch-22 situation emerges: if fraud or fluke can’t account for the phenomena, then some other theory must be employed. However, mainstream science will not accept psi until it is explained, yet psi is unlikely to be fully explained until it is incorporated into more inclusive scientific problem-solving. Therefore there is a tension between the apparent evidence for psi and lack of a working explanation for the phenomena. In a paper presented at the 51st Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, Dr. Hannah Jenkins of the University of Tansmania focused on the explanatory history of psi in an effort to reduce the tension and resolve the Catch-22 situation.Dr. Jenkins presented two arguments: the first argument is based on an assessment of the publication of prominent psi literature in relation to the dominance of the covering law theory in philosophy of science during the 1940-1960’s. According to the covering law theory, a (general) law of nature is required for any acceptable scientific explanation. However, putative psi phenomena appear to challenge these laws of nature and are only apparent when all other ‘normal’ explanatory avenues have been ruled out. The situation obtained under the covering law theory cuts psi out of consideration, but according to Dr. Jenkins, a re-evaluation can be legitimately called for on the grounds that covering law theory is out-modeded and that newer explanatory models in the philosophy of science since the 1970’s might be more accommodating.
The second argument is that the limits of science were formed when a substantially different explanatory scheme was assumed. At the time that the modern world view was founded, psi-like events were placed in the supernatural category of explanation. The scope of science at that time was set to deliberately exclude psi-like phenomena because scientific theory was limited by mechanistic explanations. This background still informs the assessment of psi today. In the current world view, psi is relegated to the unexplainable, paranormal (rather than supernatural) category, but it is still considered beyond the scope of science. Dr. Jenkins’ historical account suggests that if the body of evidence for psi is legitimate, it is pertinent to look at the limits of scientific explanation in order to discover how best to approach explanation of the phenomena as natural.
Summarized by,
Renaud Evrard
University de Rouen, France
Labels: 2008 PA convention, convention summaries, research summaries
Schizotypy is a term that indicates a greater disposition toward schizophrenia. Some argue that rather than being associated with psychosis per se, schizotypy is a personality continuum upon which all people vary. In this model, schizotypy is neutral in terms of mental health, but interacts with risk (e.g. stressful events) and protective variables (e.g. supportive social networks), leading to ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’ outcomes, such as creativity or psychosis. Support for this model of schizotypy comes predominantly from research that has found an association between schizotypy or anomaly-proneness and well-being, and also by the high incidence of anomalous experiences among healthy adults.
Belief in paranormal phenomena has often been associated with schizotypy, as well as poor critical thinking, suggestibility and psychopathology in the research literature. Other work has found that belief in the paranormal has many dimensions, with some aspects relating to mental health and others relating to psychopathology. A profile has emerged of the “happy schizotype,” who appears to be prone to unusual experiences in the absence of psychopathology and evaluates these experiences as pleasant. Happy schizotypes also have higher levels of mental health and well-being than other schizotypal profiles.
Summarized by,
Renaud Evrard
University de Rouen, France
Labels: 2008 PA convention, convention summaries, research summaries
Over the years I've picked up the habit of thumbing through the bibliography of a book to get a sense of where the author may be coming from before giving my attention to the preambles. Dr. Schmidt's bibliography didn't disappoint, and showed her book to be based on scholarly concepts and solid research. I've long thought the academic world needed a book that would present a basic overview of the state of the art, something science-based that could create a foundation for courses of study in the field of Remote Viewing (RV) at the high school as well as university level. Perhaps this is the book.
For the practitioner of RV, Remote Viewing: A Theoretical Investigation of the State of the Art not only provides a succinct history of practices leading up to today's acceptance of RV as a useful tool, but is a good overview of where investigation of the human ability to perceive anomalously stands at the moment. It isn't by any means a ‘how-to’ book, but is more like looking under the hood of an airplane to see how the engine might work than learning how to fly it.
* Fran Theis, MS, APR, is CEO of Theis Communications, Inc., an international public relations consultancy. Her Master of Science is in Broadcasting Communication from Boston University, and her Bachelor of Arts is in English Literature. She is accredited in public relations by the Public Relations Society of America. Fran has been trained in Controlled Remote Viewing through Stage VI by Paul H. Smith, author of the original military CRV Manual, and Gabrielle Pettingell. Fran is a member of the International Remote Viewing Association, Society for Scientific Exploration, and the Parapsychological Association.
Labels: book reviews
Outside of philosophy of science circles, few people have ever heard of Imre Lakatos. Lakatos, who died in 1974 at the age of 51, was a peer of Thomas Kuhn, now famous for bringing the word “paradigm” into popular use. Lakatos’s ideas about scientific progress are subtler than Kuhn’s notion of sudden paradigm shifts, but in other ways they harmonize.
Kuhn’s revolutionary ideas exposed the role of the “Old Guard” in slowing scientific progress. The Old Guard is the gatekeeper of social and scientific orthodoxy. Its ranks are filled with scientists, academics, scholars, professors, and theorists. Defenders of the status quo, they have committed their careers to a certain way of approaching the world. They are so invested in the old way of doing things that they are obliged to allow only small, acceptable changes to the old paradigm and fight against the new.
Thomas Kuhn told us why they do it. Imre Lakatos told us how they do it.
Members of the Old Guard don’t just argue against new ideas that conflict or contradict the paradigm they zealously defend. And they don’t just ignore or reject new perspectives, new tools, or new findings that don’t square with the world view they are committed to protecting. They actively resist change by denying to any researcher who fails to win their approval the means to make progress in the field. The Old Guard owns the resources that make research possible.
What are these resources? First there are the official publications, the refereed journals, the textbook publishers. If your experiment fits inside the borders of the old paradigm, your findings stand a good chance of being published in journals or books where others can see them and build upon them. What you discover becomes part of the world’s knowledge base.
If, however, you research a phenomenon that is deemed inappropriate – that is, for example in the case of ESP or remote viewing, considered ‘pseudoscience’ – it does not matter how carefully you work, nor how profound your discoveries. The Old Guard will spurn you. You will not get published, no one will notice your work, and no one will build on your findings.
But that is not the only way the Old Guard keeps the new paradigm at bay. The most powerful means to enforce orthodoxy in science is by controlling the money. Nearly all research requires some level of funding. Whether it is for specialized instruments, data processing, analysis, test tubes, meters, office materials, compensation, or travel – without funding it is difficult to do much worthwhile research. Super-colliders, quantum computing, genetic modification, stem cell research, or even grizzly bear reproduction receives billions, millions, or even scores of thousands of dollars in grants and research funds.
There was a time when ESP and other kinds of parapsychology research received not millions, but at least thousands of dollars a year. But as the skeptic movement gained strength, the funds for ESP research dried up. And the skeptical community, along with mainstream science that the skeptics have managed to co-opt, wants to keep it that way.
It is time, however, for a change. Thomas Kuhn knew that the Old Guard doesn’t last forever. And Imre Lakatos told us that old “scientific programmes” eventually give way under pressure from the new.
The International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA) wants to lead the way. To accomplish this IRVA is doing three things:
Building an online resource of information to help those interested in scientifically investigating remote viewing create good quality research projects and experiments
Activating the Gabrielle Pettingell Memorial Research Fund. You can make your tax-deductible contribution by mail or online at http://www.irva.org . We welcome any amount from $10 to $10,000 or more. You can be sure that your contributions will used only for worthy research projects.
Sponsoring its first-ever remote viewing research project
In November a group of six experienced remote viewers will gather and, assisted by four additional research personnel, will to do four sets of double-blind remote viewing targets while being monitored by an operating random event generator (see details). This experiment is being coordinated by consciousness researcher Melvin Morse, MD, IRVA’s secretary John P. Stahler, and IRVA’s president, Paul H. Smith. Expenses will run about $2,000. You can earmark your contributions for this experiment by noting ‘RV/REG experiment’ on your check or online transaction.
You may have heard of guerrilla marketing. Now we open a new era of Guerilla Funding. You have a chance to join a movement that aims to overwhelm the Old Guard. Become a part of future history by joining with us today.
Paul H. Smith
RSS feed