Parapsychology A Handbook for the 21st Century - 1st

Edition

Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:

https://medipdf.com/product/parapsychology-a-handbook-for-the-21st-century-1st-e
dition/

Click Download Now

 Table of Contents

Preface: Reintroduction Parapsychology

(Etzel Cardeña, David Marcusson-Clavertz and John Palmer)

Part One: Basic Concepts

1. An Overview of Modern Developments in Parapsychology

(Nancy L. Zingrone, Carlos S. Alvarado and Gerd H. Hövelmann)

2. Parapsychology in Context: The Big Picture

(Edward F. Kelly)

3. The Case Against Psi

(Douglas M. Stokes)

Part Two: Research Methods and Statistical Approaches

4. Experimental Methods in Anomalous Cognition and Anomalous

Perturbation Research
(John Palmer)

5. Research Methods with Spontaneous Case Studies

(Emily Williams Kelly and Jim B. Tucker)

6. Macro-Psychokinesis: Methodological Concerns

(Graham Watkins)

7. Statistical Guidelines for Empirical Studies

(Patrizio E. Tressoldi and Jessica Utts)
Part Three: Psychology and Psi

8. Psychological Concepts of Psi Function: A Review and Constructive

Critique
(Rex G. Stanford)

9. States, Traits, Cognitive Variables and Psi

(Etzel Cardeña and David Marcusson-Clavertz)

10. Ariadne’s Thread: Meditation and Psi

(Serena M. Roney-Dougal)

Part Four: Biology and Psi

11. Psi and Biology: An Evolutionary Perspective

(Richard S. Broughton)

12. Drugs and Psi Phenomena

(David Luke)

Part Five: Physics and Psi

13. Quantum Theory and Parapsychology

(Brian Millar)

14. Physical Correlates of Psi

(Adrian Ryan)

Part Six: Psi Phenomena: Anomalous Cognition, Perturbation and

Force
15. Explicit Anomalous Cognition: A Review of the Best Evidence in
Ganzfeld, Forced Choice, Remote Viewing and Dream Studies
(Johann Baptista, Max Derakhshani and Patrizio E. Tressoldi)

16. Implicit Anomalous Cognition

(John Palmer)

17. Psi and Psychophysiology

(Dean Radin and Alan Pierce)

18. Experimental Research on Distant Intention Phenomena

(Stefan Schmidt)

19. Macro-Psychokinesis
(Stephen E. Braude)

20. Micro-Psychokinesis
(Mario Varvoglis and Peter A. Bancel)

21. Implicit Physical Psi: The Global Consciousness Project

(Roger D. Nelson)

22. Experimenter Effects in Parapsychological Research

(John Palmer and Brian Millar)

Part Seven: Psi Phenomena: Research on Survival

23. Mental Mediumship

(Julie Beischel and Nancy L. Zingrone)

24. Reincarnation: Field Studies and Theoretical Issues Today

(Antonia Mills and Jim B. Tucker)

25. Ghosts and Poltergeists: An Eternal Enigma

(Michaeleen Maher)
26. Electronic Voice Phenomena
(Mark R. Leary and Tom Butler)

Part Eight: Practical Applications

27. Psi in Everyday Life: Nonhuman and Human

(Rupert Sheldrake)

28. Exceptional Experiences (ExE) in Clinical Psychology

(Martina Belz and Wolfgang Fach)

29. Applied Psi

(Paul H. Smith and Garret Moddel)

Part Nine: To Sum It Up

30. On the Usefulness of Parapsychology for Science at Large

(Gerd H. Hövelmann)

31. On Negative Capability and Parapsychology: Personal Reflections

(Etzel Cardeña)

About the Contributors

List of Names and Terms

 Preface

Reintroducing Parapsychology

ETZEL CARDEÑA, DAVID MARCUSSON-CLAVERTZ and JOHN

PALMER

The report of my death was an exaggeration.—Mark Twain, May

31, 1897

Parapsychology is the scientific study of ostensible parapsychological

phenomena such as telepathy and psychokinesis (see below). As with the
report of the death of the great ironist Mark Twain while he was alive, the
reports about the demise of parapsychology (e.g., Hyman, 2010) have been
greatly exaggerated. There are at least three good reasons why this is the
case.

First, reports of meaningful and extraordinary events such as Mark Twain’s

dream that seemed to anticipate in detail the death of his brother (Kripal,
2014), or in which some individuals seem to have precise knowledge not
attributable to their senses or logical reasoning (e.g., Lloyd Mayer, 2007)
continue to occur and are widespread across the globe (Watt & Tierney,
2014). When one inquires, it is not unusual to have people mention that
they seem to have extraordinary coincidences with someone close to them,
or that they dreamed about an event that happened in the future but could
not have been reasonably anticipated. Although some of these experiences
may be the result of selective reporting or a bad estimate of probabilities,
others can hardly be explained away as “mere coincidence,” even
considering the law of large numbers and the occurrence of very unusual
events just by chance (cf. Dyson, 2004; see also chapter 27, this volume).
From its onset as a scientific discipline, parapsychology (or psychical
research) considered “chance” as an alternative explanation and rejected it
only after evaluating its probability (Holt, Simmonds-Moore, Luke, &
French, 2012). It is thus not surprising that psi phenomena are seriously
contemplated not only in science but also in art and culture at large
(Cardeña, Iribas, & Reijman, 2012; chapter 30, this volume).

Second, as most of the chapters in this volume attest, there are various
parapsychology research paradigms (e.g., ganzfeld, dream, remote viewing,
presentiment) that control for chance and support the existence of psi
phenomena using the same criteria as those for mainstream topics. Even
Richard Wiseman, a foremost critic of parapsychology, is on record stating
that “by the standards of any other area of science … remote viewing is
proven” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-510762/Could-proof-
theory-ALL-psychic.html).

Third, although some parapsychology critics have been vociferous and

often persecuted those who dare to conduct research in the area, previous
surveys and a recent letter written by 100 academics show that many
researchers have not been persuaded by their rhetoric (Cardeña, 2011,
2014). Furthermore, a number of recent books have taken these critics to
task for their double standards and misrepresentation of the results of psi
research (e.g., McLuhan, 2010; Storr, 2013).

These arguments do not deny that the field faces considerable challenges
including lack of funding and gaining greater acceptance as a topic of
investigation (McClenon, 1982), but they reject an unjustified closure of
phenomena that continue to interest both laypeople and scientists, and have
important theoretical and practical implications. Although we are far from
having a full understanding of psi phenomena or being able to provide a
perfectly replicable experiment, there have been a number of empirical and
theoretical advances in the last few decades, described in this book.

What Is Parapsychology?

To communicate and transact with the world, humans use a number of

senses to gain information from it and muscles to act upon it. Commonly
reported, however, are experiences of phenomena in which information or
energy seems to have been apprehended or transferred without the operation
of the known senses or logical inference, and these are usually referred to as
psi phenomena (Bem & Honorton, 1994). Parapsychology is the scientific
study of these phenomena, and it includes consideration of both common
psychological explanations (e.g., inferential mistakes) as well as
explanations in which mind may be a basic, irreducible aspect of reality (cf.
Nagel, 2012) that may transcend the perceived limitations of the body
(Sidgwick, 1932). Prospective research not only on psi but on near-death
experiences (e.g., Parnia et al., 2014) suggests that the relation between the
brain and the mind is far more complex than the usual “brain creates mind”
dictum [chapter 2, this volume].

Traditionally, psi phenomena have been classified according to the

ostensible source and direction of the communication. In telepathy,
information appears to be received directly from another mind, such as
sensing that a loved one is calling for help from a distance. In clairvoyance,
information appears to be received from a distant event or object, such as
sensing that there is a fire in another city in the absence of any news about
it. In precognition information appears to be received from a future event,
such as dreaming about a disaster that occurs later that same day. In
retrocognition, a person may seem to know what occurred in the past
without using the senses or logic, as in providing precise information about
a crime that occurred earlier. It is worth mentioning that retrocognition and
precognition are not orthogonal to clairvoyance or telepathy since an
experience could be labeled as either precognitive–clairvoyant or
precognitive–telepathic. It is common to group these categories as forms of
extrasensory perception or ESP. In psychokinesis (PK) it appears that our
minds have a direct energetic effect on matter, such as a watch stopping at
the time of someone’s death. Parapsychology also includes the scientific
study of the possibility of survival of consciousness after bodily death, such
as apparent communication with a deceased person or memories of a past
life.

Some of these labels have been criticized for being burdened with
theoretical assumptions about the underlying mechanism (May, Utts, &
Spottiswoode, 1995; Palmer, 1992), and since there is debate as to the
nature of psi, it may be advisable to use more neutral terms. For instance,
the term “extrasensory perception” implies that there is a perceptual ability
other than the usual senses at work, although there is reason to suppose that
psi is not perceptual [e.g., chapters 9 and 14], so alternative terms have been
offered. May and colleagues (1995) proposed instead of ESP the term
anomalous cognition (AC) to refer to ostensible acquisition of information
in ways that are currently unexplained, and the term anomalous
perturbation (AP) to refer to ostensible influence of mind on matter in ways
that are currently unexplained, but this term applies only to what has
traditionally been called micro-PK (effects on microscopic systems,
typically random number generators). The term does not seem applicable to
what is traditionally labeled as macro-PK (effects visible to the naked eye,
such as levitation of objects), for which we propose the neologism
anomalous force (AF).

Many of the authors in this volume, however, have used the terms for the
standard subcategories of ESP: telepathy (AC when the source is another
person’s mind), clairvoyance (AC when the source is an external object or
event), and precognition (AC when the source is in the future). We use psi
and anomalous mental phenomena1 interchangeably as neutral umbrella
concepts that include AC, AP, and AF. Moreover, we make a distinction
between explicit and implicit anomalous mental phenomena. In the case of
explicit anomalous mental phenomena, individuals consciously intend to
interact with other systems (e.g., attempting to retrieve information via
telepathy). If the process is implicit there is no conscious awareness of the
phenomenon occurring but individuals nonetheless respond to the
information, for instance physiologically.

Throughout its existence, parapsychology has often been discussed as an

independent science or discipline, but it is more precise to think of it as a
transdisciplinary topic that is relevant to a number of disciplines including
psychology, anthropology, physics, biology, and the humanities. Although a
major component of research in the area revolves around what we could
call the “psi hypothesis,” namely that sentient beings are able to obtain
information not mediated by the senses or reason, or act on matter directly
independently of known physical mechanisms, there are works that leave
that question aside and focus on, for instance, the sociocultural or aesthetic
impact of ostensible parapsychological experiences or beliefs (e.g., Cardeña
et al., 2012; Owen, 1990).

In surveys of general samples and of academics, majorities have reported

for decades that parapsychology is a legitimate scientific undertaking, and
that psi phenomena is established or a likely possibility
(http://en.wikademia.org/Surveys_of_academic_opinion_regarding_parapsy
chology), with psychologists having been noticeably more skeptical than
other disciplines (Wagner & Monnet, 1979). McClenon (1982) also found
strong and widespread skepticism among Council members and section
committee members of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, especially in sections that emphasize theory/philosophy or basic
research as opposed to application. It is instructive that a skeptic of
parapsychology has commented that “most psychologists could reasonably
be described as uninformed skeptics—a minority could reasonably be
described as prejudiced bigots—where the paranormal is concerned”
(French, 2001, p. 7). And despite the notoriety of the professional magician
and debunker “The Amazing Randi,” surveys have shown that the majority
of magicians believe the phenomena to be valid or likely (Carter, 2012).

There has also been a very vehement and at times aggressive set of critics
of the psi hypothesis, some of whom have made a career out of their
critiques (Cardeña, 2011; Zingrone, 2004). They have repeatedly stated that
there is no empirical evidence for the psi hypothesis and/or that the
hypothesis is by definition impossible and any attempt to test it is foolish if
not outright dishonest. In this volume, we present a comprehensive survey
of the field, including a chapter by a critic, so that readers can evaluate the
evidence and arguments for and against psi and make up their own mind.
We are by no means the first to attempt to give an empirically-based and
comprehensive overview of the field at a particular point in time. Joseph
Banks Rhine, the best-known psi researcher in the middle of the 20th
century, and his associates provided a number of summaries of their
extensive research work (e.g., Rhine, Pratt, Stuart, Smith, & Greenwood,
1940). There have also been later comprehensive synopses of the field by
experts, including one directed to a general readership (Broughton, 1991)
and a more technical one (Radin, 1997), both having the advantages and
disadvantages of a single-authored work.
A Comparison with the 1977 Handbook of Parapsychology

The most direct precedent and inspiration for our work is the 1977
Handbook of Parapsychology, edited by Benjamin B. Wolman, with Laura
A. Dale, Gertrude R. Schmeidler, and Montague Ullman as associate
editors. Its 11 parts (history; research methods; perception, communication,
and parapsychology; parapsychology and physical systems; parapsychology
and altered states of consciousness; parapsychology and healing; survival of
bodily death; parapsychology and other fields; parapsychological models
and theories; soviet research in parapsychology; and suggested readings and
glossary), comprising 36 chapters, was an attempt to provide a “state of the
science” account, with many of the most eminent researchers and
theoreticians as contributors.

Although there is much overlap between the chapter topics in the 1977
Handbook and this volume, there are also some differences. In most cases,
they reflect changes that have occurred in the field over the years. We will
run through the most noteworthy differences in order as defined by the
Table of Contents of the 1977 Handbook. The first difference is that the
1977 Handbook has no chapter on methodology for studying AF effects,
and these were not addressed in the Experimental Psychokinesis chapter
devoted to results. We see this as a simple oversight rather than being due to
an increase in the amount of anomalous force (AF) research being
conducted. It also may have something to do with the fact that at that time
many parapsychologists felt that most AF effects (poltergeists being a
notable exception) were fraudulent and did not want parapsychology to be
identified with ostensible AF manifestations. This in turn may have been
influenced by the considerable media attention devoted at the time to the
psychic Uri Geller, whose AF exhibitions were widely (but not universally)
considered to be fraudulent. On the other hand, the 1977 Handbook did
include a chapter on paranormal photography, devoted primarily to the
exploits of the psychic Ted Serios, so the oversight was not total.

Although both volumes contain chapters on experimenter effects, Rhea

White (1977) explicitly excluded discussion of experimenter psi, claiming a
lack of space. This decision nonetheless speaks to her priorities and reflects
the discomfort that most parapsychologists have always had with this topic
as an explanation of psi effects in the laboratory. It is only in the 1980s,
with the research on the checker effect [see chapter 22, this volume] that
experimenter psi began to be reflected in the literature, and now it has
become a virtual obsession with some. Another major difference in
coverage, which is related to experimenter psi and may contribute to the
growing interest in it, is the distinction made only in the current volume
between implicit and explicit psi, with separate chapters devoted to each.
Until the introduction of the psi-mediated response model in the 1970s,
parapsychologists took it for granted that participants in laboratory studies
had to intend to produce psi for it to occur. This has changed to such an
extent that the three most prominent methodological paradigms in recent
years—the Global Consciousness Project, the presentiment effect, and
retroactive psi influence on psychological tasks [see chapters 16, 17, and
21]—all involve implicit psi.

Although both volumes contain chapters on poltergeists and hauntings, the

chapter in the 1977 Handbook by William Roll, entitled simply
“Poltergeists,” had only one page devoted to the latter. To some extent this
reflects his interests at the time, but we have noticed a drop-off in published
poltergeist cases since 1977, offset by an increase in reports of haunting
cases. A prime example is Roll himself, whose more recent investigations
were of apparent hauntings (e.g., Roll, Maher, & Brown, 1992).

In keeping with the upsurge of interest in popular culture in technology and

electronics associated with the computer age, psi researchers in recent
decades have shown a renewed interest in the role that physical energies
might play in mediating psi effects, the prime example being the earth’s
geomagnetic field. This interest is reflected by chapters in this volume on
physical energies and psi and, to a lesser extent, electronic voice
phenomena. The 1977 Handbook did not have chapters covering empirical
research on these topics, although relevant theories were covered at some
length in the chapter by C. T. K. Chari.

At the time the 1977 Handbook was published there had been little research
involving psychophysiological variables either as predictors or measures of
psi. The terms DMILS and presentiment were not yet part of our vocabulary.
Discussion of what little research there was consumed only five pages in a
chapter entitled “Parapsychology, Biology, and Anpsi” by Robert L. Morris.
Since then, psychophysiological variables have become extremely
prominent in parapsychology, mostly as psi measures. Thus, in the current
volume no less than three chapters are devoted to such research. A topic that
was not nearly as known in 1977 as now is near-death experiences, which
have received an inordinate amount of media attention. Besides their
relevance to the study of consciousness in general, they have at times
included accurate and corroborated reports of anomalous cognition
(Greyson, 2014), and most recently a prospective study had one such report
(Parnia et al., 2014) [see also chapter 6].

The previously discussed differences involve topics that are represented in

the current volume but not in the original one. The final example is the
opposite. It concerns DMILS research aimed specifically at curing some
kind of physical disease or malady, in other words, psychic or spiritual
healing. The 1977 Handbook contained a chapter on this topic, but the
current volume does not, despite a huge upsurge in such research in recent
decades. Nor is such research covered in the chapters devoted to psi and
psychophysiology. The main reason for this omission is that this work has
been published almost exclusively in alternative medicine or other medical
journals rather than parapsychology journals. In practice, the domain of
parapsychology is partly defined by what gets published in the specialized
journals, and we followed that convention for our current volume.

Advances in parapsychology since 1977 are also reflected by differences in

the contents of chapters on a common topic present in both volumes. For
example, the statistics chapter in the present volume devotes considerable
attention to meta-analyses and Bayesian statistics. These topics are not
covered at all in the statistics chapter of the 1977 Handbook because they
were not on parapsychology’s (or mainstream psychology’s) radar screen
even though Bayesian stats had been discussed earlier (e.g., Bakan, 1973).
This comparison of the two volumes belies the claim of some critics (e.g.,
Hyman, 2010) that parapsychology is a field that has stagnated or even
died. Because there is no space to reiterate the comprehensive reviews in
the 1977 Handbook and developments since then, we have asked our
contributors to briefly summarize the relevant previous sections from that
book before focusing on developments in the last 40 years.

Some Invalid Criticisms of Psi Research

The scientific method demands a skeptical (i.e., open but critical) attitude
toward both cherished and abhorred hypotheses. A discussion of alternative
explanations and potential problems with previous studies or analyses is
healthy and necessary in scientific discourse. We do not refer to that
necessary aspect of science in what follows, but rather to a number of
specific invalid criticisms of parapsychology. Some of these are outright
false or very questionable despite being often repeated, especially in the
echo chambers of some blogs and “skeptical” magazines (we strongly
recommend that the seriously interested reader skip Wikipedia and these
sources, which are often blatantly biased, and consult instead primary
journal sources). We list here some of the most common ones along with an
explanation of why they are unfounded:

(a) Psi research is not scientific because it is not published in scientific,

peer-reviewed journals. This is a false but not uncommon belief, despite the
fact that it can be easily disproven. Despite the strong bias by some editors
against the field, psi work has been published in major transdisciplinary
journals such as Nature and Science, as well as in top-tier disciplinary
journals such as American Psychologist, Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Psychological Bulletin, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
and Physics Letters. In addition, the major parapsychological journals still
being published including the Journal of Parapsychology, the Journal of
the Society for Psychical Research, and the Journal of Scientific
Exploration have been peer-reviewed for decades, and have published
failures to replicate and criticism of studies from both proponents and
critics of the psi hypothesis.

(b) The previous criticism at times has been paradoxically paired with this
one: Psi research is not scientific by definition and should not be published
in scientific, peer-reviewed journals. The catch-22 logic behind this
statement is that psi research is not scientific because it is not published in
peer-reviewed journals (false, but never mind that), while simultaneously
maintaining that such research cannot be published because it is not
scientific (see Cardeña, 2011, for various examples of this [il]logic).

(c) Also related to the notion that parapsychology is unscientific is the

assertion that psi research does not use the scientific method. In fact, since
the founding of the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in 1882,
parapsychological research has strived for unbiased testing of the psi
hypothesis through the scientific method, even though (as in other scientific
fields) it has not always been applied properly. The SPR and other societies
have included as members very eminent scientists (including various Nobel
prizewinners) who have used the methodology and skills learned in their
respective scientific disciplines to conduct their psi research (e.g., Cardeña,
2013). A perusal of any of the main parapsychology journals shows that the
basic elements of the scientific method such as hypothesis testing, designs
that seek to eliminate confounding variables, and statistical analysis typify
research in this field, a fact that allowed the professional organization of
parapsychology, the Parapsychological Association, to become an affiliate
of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) in
1969. Not only that, but some techniques now regularly used in mainstream
disciplines such as meta-analysis and masked designs, were created or
developed by psi researchers (Watt, 2005).

(d) Another false assertion is that only individuals without a scientific

background endorse psi. This is clearly not the case, given the number of
past and present academy-based researchers who have done research in the
field. More insidious is the sometimes implied notion that although these
researchers may conduct themselves scientifically in their mainstream
fields, they become unscientific when they conduct psi research. An
example of this is the opprobrium that the eminent psychologist Daryl Bem
received after he published a paper supportive of the psi hypothesis with,
among others, Douglas Hofstadter referring to it as “a cutoff for craziness,”
and David Helfand as “an assault on science and rationality”
(http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/06/the-esp-study-when-
science-goes-psychic). A perverse link of this vicious circle is that whereas
successful researchers in other areas are assumed to become unscientific
once they endorse parapsychology, other researchers who opine on non-
mainstream fields without becoming knowledgeable in them are not
assumed to be unscientific even though they “fail to do their homework” in
the words of Carl Sagan (1976, p. 2). It is very unlikely that those scientists
would approve of colleagues in other fields judging their areas of expertise
unless the latter had thoroughly studied the literature in that field, yet some
critics of parapsychology seem to have no problem doing so.

(e) A somewhat tangential but very popular point, especially among

nonacademic critics of parapsychology, is that the “Randi prize,” a cash
award created by a magician who has made a career out of exposing
fraudulent performers, has never been awarded. Thus, some conclude from
this that psi phenomena do not exist. Nonetheless, both psi proponents and
critics have remarked that such a challenge has nothing to do with how
science tests hypotheses, and the circumstances of awarding it are
completely controlled by Randi, making the prize a publicity stunt rather
than an impartial test (McLuhan, 2010). We should also mention that the
vast amount of evidence covered in this volume refers to consistent results
deviating from randomness—the kind of evidence often used in many other
disciplines, including psychology, medicine, biology, and physics—rather
than showing an exceptional ability on demand such as “reading a person’s
mind” or making a table levitate.

(f) Some in the general public whose only contact with science may be the
popular press think that if one or a group of scientists opine something (for
instance the notion that psi is a pseudoscience), then all scientists in that
field surely must agree with that opinion. In reality, there are contentious
disagreements among experts even on mainstream topics (Feyerabend,
1975), so there is no single scientist or even a group of them who can speak
for all experts in a field. When a scientist makes a portentous statement
such as the existence of psi would annul science or go against the “laws of
nature,” there is a good reason to question whether all or even most
scientists in the area would agree with the statement. For example, although
ostensible precognitive abilities seem to go against the current folk
understanding of physics, they do not prima facie contradict block models
of time or backward causation, which are currently discussed within
mainstream physics [see chapter 13]. Furthermore, the idea that science