Hi
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Miguel Roig wrote:
> At 04:31 PM 6/17/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >1. Why do you assume it is not empirically based? I have read
> >widely in the area of parapsychology and related beliefs and
> >would not be at all surprised to be able to document an increase
> >in such beliefs.
>
> As one who has publicly taken the side of parapsychology on
> this list, I wonder if you would clarify the following for me.
> By reading "widely in the area of parapsychology", do you mean
> that you have actually read 'widely' in the primary
> parapsychological literature (e.g., articles in journals such
> as the Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of American Society
> for Psychical Research) or is it the case that you have read
> articles on parapsychology published mainly in the skeptical
> literature (e.g., Skeptical Inquirer) or articles and books
Much of my reading has happened over an extended period, so I am
no longer exactly sure what I have read. But I guess if I had to
describe it more specifically, I would say it includes mainly
skeptical literature, although not by any means restricted to
Skeptical Inquirer type articles. This would include books and
articles by academic psychologists (Hyman, others ... my books
are in my office) who have reviewed the literature, scientists
who have challenged the "quantum" theorizing about causal
mechanisms, and the like. Next would come more popular level
works like Skeptical Inquirer and like works. I also have read
popularized proponents of and critics of parapsychology (e.g.,
about Houdini's debunkings) and a bit in the historical
literature (e.g., the debate between Darwin, a critic, and
Wallace, a proponent). My primary contact with direct phenomena
and studies would probably be with things like the Bem article on
the ganzfeld studies and Utts' (sp?) metaanalysis. I by no means
would claim to have read anywhere near what is available in the
area, but would just note that I am reading in a domain that
(pardon my skepticism) has shown little to recommend itself to
scientists (that is not a condemnation of all working in the
field).
I mentioned it in this context, perhaps unwisely, just to
document for Louis that I thought I would be able to find
something relevant to the increase in people's belief in new age
ideas. With respect to the parapsychological literature I have
been exposed to, I have not found any compelling evidence for a
reliable phenomenon that requires any appeal to the paranormal,
including the purportedly small deviations from chance that Utts
reports. I have not tried to examine or discredit every claim
about such effects, nor do I think that is possible. But even if
there were such phenomena, I have not, as a cognitive
psychologist, been able to imagine any way by which they could
occur (e.g., how the thoughts of one sender could be identified
in the midst of the thoughts of many millions of people in the
world, how the encoding and decoding necessary to transmit and
receive information could happen, how an inert object could
encode its form and transmit it to a particular receiver, and so
on). If there are reliable effects and plausible hypotheses
(especially specific cognitive processes) about how they occur, I
would be interested in hearing about them. Until such findings
and explanations do appear, I take new age acceptance of such
ideas as a sign that too many people come to believe things
without good reason, something that I (and others ... see Sagan's
Candle in the Dark) see as antithetical to science.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9313
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L02A
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
