Jeff
-----------------------------
Hi, Jeff. One of my colleagues forwarded your message to me without comment, probably because I'm the resident transpersonalist here in the counselor education program at the University of North Texas. I would like to briefly respond. Please keep in mind that I have, but have not read, the book to which you referred. My reactions are:1. The authors do not represent all people in the field of transpersonal psychology. Their viewpoint certainly does not represent me. 2. I agree 100% with your critique. I'm horrified to see such looseness in research. 3. Although some aspects of the transpersonal domain may not be amenable to scientific inquiry, many aspects are, and those aspects remain, to a very great extent, unexplored. 4. I believe we should first exhaust the very large aspect of the transpersonal domain that is amenable to scientific inquiry WITH rigorous scientific inquiry before we concern ourselves with the domains that may not be amenable to such inquiry. For an example, see a description of my proposed research on non-local perception among near-death experiencers (ability to perceive apart from the five senses and the brain). Go to www.near-death.com and search around the site; choose the "research" option. You'll know you're there when you see my picture, etc. I appreciate your holding the transpersonal field's feet to the fire as you have. I also urge you not to judge the many by the one, and to dispose of the bathwater while retaining the baby. I'm going to send a copy of your message and my response to the new editor of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, FHY (for her information). Jan Holden, Ed.D., Associate Professor Coordinator, Counselor Education Program University of North Texas
My reply:
Dear Jan,
Thank you for responding to my critique. I wish you much luck in your planned research. Nevertheless, I must state that I am very skeptical of any explanation of anomalous experiences (such as the out-of-body experiences you are trying to study) that assumes a basic Cartesian mind/body dualism to human nature. This assumption seems to be the common core of thinking in transpersonal psychology based on my (admittedly limited) readings in this area. In fact, it seems that transpersonal psychology is nothing more than the "old wine" of parapsychology in new bottles. I see no consistent evidence offered by paranormal researchers that requires the postulation of a supernatural realm, which is what transpersonal psychologists seem to be postulating. I believe that any positive results that have been reported by parapsychologists can be better explained by the absence of adequate controls (such as controls for suggestion, demand characteristics, retro-fitting of results to make them consistent with the original claim, unconscious leaking of information to participants, etc.) as well as outright fraud. Thus, when you say that "we should first exhaust the very large aspect of the transpersonal domain that is amenable to scientific inquiry" by performing controlled research, my response is that this domain has already been exhausted by performing such research, and it has been found to offer nothing reliable to support its claims.
Nevertheless, I wish you luck. I will forward your message and my reply to the listserve to which I originally sent my critique.
Regards,
Jeff Ricker
--
Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D.
Office Phone: (480) 423-6213
9000 E. Chaparral Rd.
FAX Number: (480) 423-6298
Psychology Department
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scottsdale Community College
Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626
"The truth is rare and never simple."
Oscar Wilde
"Science must begin with myths and with the criticism of myths"
Karl Popper
