Consciousness and the Paranormal

[smcder]

Thank you for posting the link to the Trickster Home Page. I went to his blog - The Paranormal Trickster Blog where his last (but very valuable) entry was some time back in 2010 and where he talks about the death of Martin Gardner: "He dealt with the issues frequently, in depth, and for more than half a century. He was passionate about the topic, and it is not too strong to say that paranormal claims enraged him. In its own way, the paranormal was part of his life, and part of him. His writings, and also his person, merit attention. The emotion that paranormal controversies generates, and the schisms they provoke, are key to understanding the anti-structural nature of the phenomena."

Never having traversed the realm of the skeptics, I think the presence of anger towards paranormal claims is what has startled me most - yet I should not be surprised. It could be explained by human nature and the issues of power and control.

If paranormal claims are true - how does one identify the person who is so endowed? What does one so endowed see, know - about me, perhaps? The idea of it (rather than the experience of it) could work on the imagination in such a way as to intimidate - which is exactly what charlatans and con-artists depend upon, of course.

The term anti-structural intrigues me: "The ubiquitous controversies and schisms in paranormal fields are captured by the word anti-structure, a term derived from the anthropological study of ritual. The concept explains characteristics of the trickster figure of mythology as well as properties of paranormal phenomena."

I like the term - but I would probably use it differently than they were using it. Going into some of the anthropological papers to read about it brought me back to how brain-numbing academia can sometimes be for the beginning student.

Martin Gardner came up for me recently - he's an interesting guy, this is from the Wikipedia entry:

Although Gardner was a fierce critic of paranormal claims, under his "George Groth" pseudonym he wrote an article for Fate magazine(October 1952, pp. 39–43) titled "He Writes with Your Hand," which touted the psychic abilities of mentalist Stanley Jaks as genuine.[23]

and more on his own beliefs:

Religion and philosophy

Gardner had an abiding fascination with religious belief. He was a fideistic theist, professing belief in a god as creator, but critical of organized religion. He has been quoted as saying that he regards parapsychology and other research into the paranormal as tantamount to "tempting God" and seeking "signs and wonders". He stated that while he would expect tests on the efficacy of prayers to be negative, he would not rule out a priori the possibility that as yet unknown paranormal forces may allow prayers to influence the physical world.

"I am a philosophical theist. I believe in a personal god, and I believe in an afterlife, and I believe in prayer, but I don’t believe in any established religion. This is called philosophical theism.... Philosophical theism is entirely emotional. As Kant said, he destroyed pure reason to make room for faith."

– Martin Gardner, 2008

Gardner wrote repeatedly about what public figures such as Robert Maynard Hutchins, Mortimer Adler, and William F. Buckley, Jr. believed and whether their beliefs were logically consistent. In some cases, he attacked prominent religious figures such as Mary Baker Eddy on the grounds that their claims are unsupportable. His semi-autobiographical novel The Flight of Peter Fromm depicts a traditionally Protestant Christian man struggling with his faith, examining 20th century scholarship and intellectual movements and ultimately rejecting Christianity while remaining a theist. He described his own belief as philosophical theism inspired by the theology of the philosopher Miguel de Unamuno. While eschewing systematic religious doctrine, Gardner believed in a god, asserting that this belief cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed by reason or science. At the same time, he was skeptical of claims that any god has communicated with human beings through spoken or telepathic revelation or through miracles in the natural world.

Gardner's religious philosophy may be summarized as follows: There is nothing supernatural, and nothing in human reason or visible in the world to compel people to believe in any gods. The mystery of existence is enchanting, but a belief in "The Old One" comes from faith without evidence. However, with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without. If there is an afterlife, the loving "Old One" is probably real. "[To an atheist] the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody", from G. K. Chesterton, was one of Gardner's favorite quotes.

Gardner said that he suspected that the fundamental nature of human consciousness may not be knowable or discoverable, unless perhaps a physics more profound than ("underlying") quantum mechanics is some day developed. In this regard, he said, he was an adherent of the "New Mysterianism".

 

[Constance]

for Ufology:

 

[smcder]

Thank you for posting the link to the Trickster Home Page. I went to his blog - The Paranormal Trickster Blog

. . .

The term anti-structural intrigues me: "The ubiquitous controversies and schisms in paranormal fields are captured by the word anti-structure, a term derived from the anthropological study of ritual. The concept explains characteristics of the trickster figure of mythology as well as properties of paranormal phenomena."

. . .

Hansen's book directly addresses some of the difficulties in conducting scientific research into the paranormal - (part 4 I believe) - in terms of the Trickster concept . . . I believe his book tells why anyone who tries to explicate the paranormal ends up in the hands of the Trickster -

from the preface:

Several issues are addressed in this book. One if the ongoing controversy over psi's existence - despite extensive research and a massive amount of published data, the scientific debate has continued for over a hundred years. Another issue concerns the unexpected consequences of direct attempts to elicit psi; these are rarely recognized. A third issue is the paranormal's relationship with institutions.

The way I read Hansen's ideas above as discussed in detail in the book - the paranormal will always be a fringe area, rather it is the fringe or liminal area, so if anything that is currently in the realm of the paranormal gets moved into the mainstream of science or culture (I think unlikely) the fringe or liminal area will simply move out - the liminal is part of structure (de-structure) and is the last phase before chaos . . . in periods of social unrest, liminal areas - magick and psi become frequent, he cites the break-up of the Soviet Union . . . he also notes that while there are only a hand full of professional parapsychologists and psi researchers, the supernatural as portrayed in the popular media is a multi-million dollar industry . . . in this scientific and technological age - how many television shows and movie/book series right now deal directly with the supernatural?

Twilight, Grimm, Sleepy Hollow . . . etc.

 

[Tyger]

In some cases, he attacked prominent religious figures such as Mary Baker Eddy on the grounds that their claims are unsupportable.

Interesting given my experience of dedicated Christian Scientists. There are problems with the life style in certain instances as Christian Scientist friends have shared - but it is a powerful world view that has genuine effects. Here again we are in the realm of the mind/body interrelation.

We live in a world filled with viruses and germs - but only some are impacted, and we ourselves are only occasionally susceptible. What governs that? Christian Science has a model of the human mind that addresses that. IMO it is successful enough of the time to warrant serious consideration.

I once did a healing on myself. When I described my experience to my Christian Science friend she confirmed it was a 'healing' in the Christian Science sense.

I woke up one morning ill in a far away place where I was on assignment. My inability to go into work would have significant consequences - but I had to be well in order to do my work that day. I sat on the couch - aware that what I had was a 'bug' that was going around and it had a 3-day time cycle. However, I sat on the couch and 'confronted' the illness and my body with my mind - the best way I can describe the experience was that my mind (in a powerful 'oneness' with my emotions) simply 'told' my body that 'we aren't going to do the illness'. It was as though I was standing at the door to my body, and with a dismissive gesture, ordered the illness 'Out!'. There was no room for 'disobedience' - my mind, emotions and my will (in particular) were of 'one mind/intent' - and in an instant I felt a transition. In an instant - one moment to the next - the illness was there, then gone. One moment I was in the grip of symptoms - the next they were gone.

I stood up totally okay, when minutes before had been a very different situation. It was a powerful experience I have never forgotten. The power of the mind is consequential.

 

[Constance]

Hansen's book directly addresses some of the difficulties in conducting scientific research into the paranormal - (part 4 I believe) - in terms of the Trickster concept . . . I believe his book tells why anyone who tries to explicate the paranormal ends up in the hands of the Trickster.

Steve, can you clarify what Hansen thinks the 'trickster' is? Whether it is something that possesses agency? Where it originates, etc. Thanks.

 

[Tyger]

Hansen's book directly addresses some of the difficulties in conducting scientific research into the paranormal - (part 4 I believe) - in terms of the Trickster concept . . . I believe his book tells why anyone who tries to explicate the paranormal ends up in the hands of the Trickster

This idea of the 'Trickster is interesting but I'm not sure how it's being used in this regard. I've used the term myself - it's a very old term. It's in the Tarot Deck. It has to do with The Moon - delusion, illusion. luna-cy. It has to do with all the elements of the unredeemed/unpurified self that trip us up. It is also a concept found in folk tales - for example in the stories of the Southwest Indians of the US, consider Coyote and Kokopelli. This is the idea of an undependable, tricky aspect of soul, be it a subjective event or an objectified force. But how is it meant here?

It's always strange approaching mainstream science regarding the psyche with an esoteric background. The model is there - there is a wealth of context - the very word science comes out of that lineage (occult science, esoteric science, alchemy) - and yet it's like a child that has rejected it's parent and is trying to maintain it's own identity sans past and is attempting to 'figure out' it's past without ever looking back.

 

[Constance]

Thanks for your clear thoughts on the trickster, Tyger. What you say is close to my understanding of Jung's idea of the trickster. I have the impression that the term is widely used but little understood in general usage.

 

[smcder]

Steve, can you clarify what Hansen thinks the 'trickster' is? Whether it is something that possesses agency? Where it originates, etc. Thanks.

That is a good question made harder for me by having read the book! (I'm curious to read Chris O'Brien's book on the topic) - he discusses the trickster (phenomena, mythology and yes I get a sense there is an element of agency) in terms of boundaries, structure, opposites, instability, transition, liminality and marginality . . . that said, I don't think I can directly answer your question, because Hansen takes the whole book to answer similar questions . . . so I really recommend this book - it touches directly on a lot of the topics and dynamics of this thread . . . may be best to have a look directly at the table of contents on the website (with annotations), here:

Table of Contents, Annotated, The Trickster and the Paranormal

and the introduction here:

Introduction to The Trickster and the Paranormal

I'll go ahead and post this from the links above in hopes it will intrigue folks to read more:

This list is from the intro and will give you an idea of what Hansen is putting under the heading of "Trickster" - these are effects of or results of the trickster - of particular interest to me right now is Hansen's discussion of how much the paranormal figures into today's popular culture and the interconnection (complex) of the paranormal and deception, he points to many historical cases that show evidence of both genuine ability and fraud (often in the same person) - the Trickster theory says why you should expect to find both in the same person.

• Fortune-telling is often associated with carnivals, gypsies, and fraud. Yet many saints have had the gifts of prophecy and of knowing hearts. Do fraud and sainthood have something in common?
• Why did the teacher of the U.S. government’s psychic spies become interested in sightings of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
• The terms “magic” and “conjuring” have two meanings—use of occult powers, and the performance of tricks. The same words are used for both. Why?
• The supernatural features in the world’s greatest literature. All major religions have stories of miracles. Over half of the U.S. adult population has had paranormal experiences. Despite all this, there are no university departments of parapsychology. In fact as I write, I can identify only two laboratories in the U.S. devoted to parapsychology that employ two or more full-time scientists who publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Why so little research?
• Mediums of dubious reputation have been reported to levitate, but so have religious mystics. What is the connection?
• Innumerable movies have been made about extraterrestrial aliens, some grossing hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), the largest U.S. organization focused on UFO research, was still headquartered in the home of its founder, 30 years after it began. Why?
• The elite media give the paranormal little serious coverage. The tabloids often put it on the front page. Why?
• In universities one can study literature of the supernatural. Academic psychologists and sociologists willingly investigate belief in the paranormal. However, to attempt direct encounter with the supernatural, or to try eliciting paranormal phenomena in order to observe them directly, brings opposition and hostility. In this scientific age, why isn’t such rational inquiry welcomed?
• Why did so many of the U.S. government’s psychic spies become interested in UFOs?
• Funding for scientific investigation of the paranormal has come almost entirely from wealthy individuals. Virtually no large philanthropic organizations or government bureaucracies have provided substantial, long-term support for the research. The only exceptions are the intelligence agencies—the only section of government formally allowed to use deception. Why does the money come from these sources?
• Today some liberal Christian Protestant denominations downplay miracles, seeing them as embarrassments, relics from a primitive, superstitious past. Likewise, they view prayer as having only psychological benefits for those who pray, but nothing more. What caused this dramatic shift in beliefs?
• Conservatives still see miracles and answers to prayer as God’s intervention in the world. Are these beliefs intellectually backward, superstitious, delusional, and maladapted to the modern world? The conservative denominations are flourishing while the liberal churches decline. Why?

 

[smcder]

Steve, can you clarify what Hansen thinks the 'trickster' is? Whether it is something that possesses agency? Where it originates, etc. Thanks.

This is a good discussion of the evolution of terminology that might be helpful on this thread:

"In times past, the word “supernatural” designated the phenomena of interest here. That term hints at something ominous, dangerous, and unsettling. More recently the word “paranormal” came into vogue. It suggests that the phenomena are more mundane, odd perhaps, but not worrisome for most people. In the last two decades, a few scientists have begun referring to them as “anomalous,” indicating that they are merely minor curiosities, without threat or of much immediate import. The new labeling makes the topic slightly more acceptable in academe, and the term “anomalous” is not incorrect, because the phenomena do not fit within mainstream scientific theories. However, such labeling divorces the phenomena of today from their historical predecessors, and previous knowledge about them is disregarded. In earlier cultures, the supernatural was known to be dangerous and was surrounded by taboos. Today’s scientists have no comprehension why, and with their naive terminology, they become vulnerable to the phenomena.

I will use the terms paranormal and supernatural interchangeably. Dictionaries are clear that the two words refer to the same phenomena. I will sometimes use the terms together, although that is redundant. But I wish to emphasize the paranormal’s frequent association with religion. "

 

[smcder]

Steve, can you clarify what Hansen thinks the 'trickster' is? Whether it is something that possesses agency? Where it originates, etc. Thanks.

One last thought:

Tyger has mentioned a few times that it's best not to talk too much about some elements of the occult or supernatural or (pick your term) . . . Hansen touches directly on this and the idea of the taboo (lost I think on our culture) and gives some fascinating examples . . . including his own experiences . . . it's one of the things I've heard most frequently in exploring this field, everyone who has done some serious investigation seems to have experienced these effects.

 

[smcder]

I would suggest that you avoid calling your work science unless it is. Scientific validity requires a recognized scientific consensus that your work conforms to rigorous standards of scientific methodology. If you fail to meet those standards ( which is virtually inevitable for political and practical reasons ), you'll only lay yourself open to accusations of pseudoscience, which has taken on a distinct air of disdain among the skeptics and the scientific community, and you'll lose any academic credibility you might have otherwise gained. You are already calling it Psi Research, which is fine. Paranormal or Psychic Studies would also be OK, and you should make your position clear at the outset.

Instead of science, use the process of critical thinking as outlined by the Foundation for Critical Thinking. Critical thinking allows you to make use of any evidence and/or reasoning ( including scientific ) during your studies, but is not the same as the scientific method. For example, if you run across valid scientific information that you want to quote, you can. At the same time, you can also apply philosophical reasoning and anecdotal evidence to the process. Provided that it is all kept in context and is coherent, it is the best way to ascertain the truth of a given situation, and because you aren't making any claim to be doing science, you cannot be fairly accused of doing pseudoscience.

If you should secure evidence that you think would be of use to science, then engage a real and independent scientist who can perform an analysis under conditions that meet the standards of the scientific community. In this way you will be working with scientists rather than competing against them, so you are far more likely to win sympathy. That's my two cents worth, and BTW I take my advice to heart when it comes to ufology. Ufology is not a science and will never become one. It isn't suited to the scientific method for several reasons. However this in no way diminishes it as a topic for study. Quite the opposite actually. For more, see the link on my website here: What is Ufology?

Right now I'm just thinking of this like an intellectual diary and my intro to the blog is just going to say that my interest (as a layperson) in the paranormal has led me to start reading peer-reviewed articles on Psi research and summarize them and note any changes in my own thinking about the topic.

I don't have any particular thoughts about getting this "out there" for others to read other than if it develops at all I will post a link to this thread on the Paracast forums . . . if I figure out a way to add any value for anyone else I might consider trying to get some attention to my efforts - besides a way to clarify my own thinking, the only other reason I have right now for doing this is to have a link I could point anyone to if my interest in the paranormal came up in conversation, then I could say "go have a look here on the web". Most people I know would have no idea that there are any peer-reviewed publications on Psi out there.

 

[smcder]

I think your analysis is pretty good, but I've found that there is enough subtle difference between the two words ( supernatural and paranormal ) that synonymous usage isn't such a good idea. For example, the supernatural typically refers to objective things in some other realm beyond the reach of science at any hypothetical level of advancement ( e.g. realms beyond any we can study empirically and the things that may reside in them ) whereas the paranormal can refer to subject matter that may be physical ( e.g. psychic powers ) but are still beyond the range of empirical analysis.

Strictly speaking, such things as cryptozoology and UFOs ( alien craft ) fall outside both the supernatural and the paranormal because they involve material things that could be studied according to the principles of science ( e.g. Bigfoot hair samples or UFO crash debris ). A piece of metal alloy isn't paranormal or supernatural regardless of where it came from. Mind you, I don't think most people take these differences into account, and simply mush it all together into the same basket. So from a pop culture perspective, synonymous usage is defensible. It all depends on how seriously you want to take it.

Sorry, I forgot to source this - it's not mine, it's Hansen's analysis from the intro to The Trickster and the Paranormal: Introduction to The Trickster and the Paranormal - in context of how I understood the book, he was showing here how there has been a change in language over time to downplay the importance of these phenomena, from the ominous and unsettling connotations of "supernatural" to the more mundane "paranormal" to the more or less dismissive "anomalous":

In the last two decades, a few scientists have begun referring to them as “anomalous,” indicating that they are merely minor curiosities, without threat or of much immediate import.

His point is that this change in language removes these phenomena and concepts from their history and from what was known about them in terms of an appreciation of their dangers and in terms of taboos. He also notes that he wants (for the purposes of his work) to emphasize the frequent association between these words and religion. He concludes:

Today’s scientists have no comprehension why, and with their naive terminology, they become vulnerable to the phenomena.

So, here is Hansen's argument again in its entirety with that context in mind (or again, read the whole intro here for full context: Introduction to The Trickster and the Paranormal

"In times past, the word “supernatural” designated the phenomena of interest here. That term hints at something ominous, dangerous, and unsettling. More recently the word “paranormal”came into vogue. It suggests that the phenomena are more mundane, odd perhaps, but not worrisome for most people. In the last two decades, a few scientists have begun referring to them as “anomalous,” indicating that they are merely minor curiosities, without threat or of much immediate import. The new labeling makes the topic slightly more acceptable in academe, and the term “anomalous” is not incorrect, because the phenomena do not fit within mainstream scientific theories. However, such labeling divorces the phenomena of today from their historical predecessors, and previous knowledge about them is disregarded. In earlier cultures, the supernatural was known to be dangerous and was surrounded by taboos. Today’s scientists have no comprehension why, and with their naive terminology, they become vulnerable to the phenomena.

I will use the terms paranormal and supernatural interchangeably. Dictionaries are clear that the two words refer to the same phenomena. I will sometimes use the terms together, although that is redundant. But I wish to emphasize the paranormal’s frequent association with religion. "

 

[Constance]

Steve, thank you so much for this substantive and detailed introduction to Hansen's book on the history of the 'trickster' concept. This subject seems to be an excellent opening for your personal examination of the paranormal in your blog, and I'm looking forward to reading everything you write in the blog as well as here, where I hope we'll see a discussion of what this concept signifies about human psychology and the meaning of demonstrated paranormal experience and abilities, which I think are two separate subjects. When you have time to add more, would you characterize Hansen's conclusions to his study? Thank you again for all you provide here.

 

[Constance]

Sorry, I forgot to source this - it's not mine, it's Hansen's analysis from the intro to The Trickster and the Paranormal: Introduction to The Trickster and the Paranormal - in context of how I understood the book, he was showing here how there has been a change in language over time to downplay the importance of these phenomena, from the ominous and unsettling connotations of "supernatural" to the more mundane "paranormal" to the more or less dismissive "anomalous":

In the last two decades, a few scientists have begun referring to them as “anomalous,” indicating that they are merely minor curiosities, without threat or of much immediate import.

His point is that this change in language removes these phenomena and concepts from their history and from what was known about them in terms of an appreciation of their dangers and in terms of taboos. He also notes that he wants (for the purposes of his work) to emphasize the frequent association between these words and religion. He concludes:

Today’s scientists have no comprehension why, and with their naive terminology, they become vulnerable to the phenomena.

So, here is Hansen's argument again in its entirety with that context in mind (or again, read the whole intro here for full context: Introduction to The Trickster and the Paranormal

"In times past, the word “supernatural” designated the phenomena of interest here. That term hints at something ominous, dangerous, and unsettling. More recently the word “paranormal”came into vogue. It suggests that the phenomena are more mundane, odd perhaps, but not worrisome for most people. In the last two decades, a few scientists have begun referring to them as “anomalous,” indicating that they are merely minor curiosities, without threat or of much immediate import. The new labeling makes the topic slightly more acceptable in academe, and the term “anomalous” is not incorrect, because the phenomena do not fit within mainstream scientific theories. However, such labeling divorces the phenomena of today from their historical predecessors, and previous knowledge about them is disregarded. In earlier cultures, the supernatural was known to be dangerous and was surrounded by taboos. Today’s scientists have no comprehension why, and with their naive terminology, they become vulnerable to the phenomena.

I will use the terms paranormal and supernatural interchangeably. Dictionaries are clear that the two words refer to the same phenomena. I will sometimes use the terms together, although that is redundant. But I wish to emphasize the paranormal’s frequent association with religion. "

I agree with Hansen on the very close relationship between the paranormal and the supernatural and the importance of understanding the history of this integrated subject matter among our species going back into prehistory. I've just been reading Hansen's excellent historical article on the modern skeptical movement, linked at the page below, where he recognizes the religious/antireligious attitudes motivating many influential figures in that movement [see pp. 8-9 ff in the downloaded article, pp. 30-31 ff in the text available on the linked page itself] in their organized attacks on psi research over the last four or five decades. The article is a must-read, in my opinion, for skeptics and those who run up against them.

CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview by George P. Hansen

 

[smcder]

Steve, thank you so much for this substantive and detailed introduction to Hansen's book on the history of the 'trickster' concept. This subject seems to be an excellent opening for your personal examination of the paranormal in your blog, and I'm looking forward to reading everything you write in the blog as well as here, where I hope we'll see a discussion of what this concept signifies about human psychology and the meaning of demonstrated paranormal experience and abilities, which I think are two separate subjects. When you have time to add more, would you characterize Hansen's conclusions to his study? Thank you again for all you provide here.

Hansen's book felt like it just ended, there were so many places I wanted him to expand his ideas - but the book is well annotated. I'll let you know when I get the blog going.

 

[Constance]

Very good. I've read that article by Jessica Utts and a more recent one in which she clarifies the statistical meaning of experimental results primarily in the PEAR work led by Robert Jahn. She's an impressive scholar and expert in the field of statistics. The repeatability demanded by materialist scientists has been a roadblock to psi investigations given the nonmateriality of most psi experiences and abilities, which in themselves are transient and complex phenomena with a long history of occurring. To deny that history rather than to study it and investigate current psi phenomena is hardly 'rational', but rather irrational in itself. It is to say in effect "we don't know how to measure what happens in these experiences and experiments, so we should just ignore them rather than investigate them and attempt to learn from them more about the actual nature of reality."

 

[smcder]

The same guidelines can be applied to a more casual effort and will do nothing but make it easier to clarify your own thinking and make it more attractive to anyone you decide to share it with. You have consistently good ideas and a knack for getting to the heart of the issues. I suspect that after you wade through it all, you'll end up at roughly the same place I'm at now with respect to ψ research, but then again, who knows? Maybe you'll run across some obscure experiments that can be replicated and will shed more light on the subject. Either way, if the Paracast survives its latest crisis, please let us know when you get it going. Otherwise, you have my website address, and from there you can always send me a personal email. I look forward to checking your thoughts out there from time to time. BTW, here's a site you might find interesting: Paranormal Site Investigators.

Some good information on replication from Jessica Utts website: JESSICA UTTS' HOME PAGE

"Replication and Meta-Analysis in Parapsychology."
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~jutts/UttsStatPsi.pdf

Abstract. Parapsychology, the laboratory study of psychic phenomena,
has had its history interwoven with that of statistics. Many of the
controversies in parapsychology have focused on statistical issues, and
statistical models have played an integral role in the experimental
work. Recently, parapsychologists have been using meta-analysis as a
tool for synthesizing large bodies of work. This paper presents an
overview of the use of statistics in parapsychology and offers a summary
of the meta-analyses that have been conducted. It begins with some
anecdotal information about the involvement of statistics and statisti-
cians with the early history of parapsychology. Next, it is argued that
most nonstatisticians do not appreciate the connection between power
and "successful" replication of experimental effects. Returning to para-
psychology, a particular experimental regime is examined by summariz-
ing an extended debate over the interpretation of the results. A new set
of experiments designed to resolve the debate is then reviewed. Finally,
meta-analyses from several areas of parapsychology are summarized. It
is concluded that the overall evidence indicates that there is an anoma-
lous effect in need of an explanation.

and linked from Utts home-page, in a series on Common Criticisms About Parapsychology:


Common criticisms about parapsychology: Criticism 3
Parapsychology does not have a "repeatable" experiment.
Published by Parapsychological Association on Friday, February 11, 2011
Response: When many people talk about a repeatable psi experiment, they usually have in mind an experiment like those conducted in elementary physics classes to demonstrate the acceleration of gravity, or simple chemical reactions. In such experiments, where there are relatively few, well-known and well-controllable variables, the experiments can be performed by practically anyone, anytime, and they will work. But insisting on this level of repeatability is inappropriate for parapsychology, or for that matter, for most social or behavioral science experiments. Psi experiments usually involve many variables, some of which are poorly understood and difficult or impossible to directly control. Under these circumstances, scientists use statistical arguments to demonstrate "repeatability" instead of the common, but restrictive view that "If it's real, I should be able to do it whenever I want."

Under the assumption that there is no such thing as psi, we would expect that about 5% of well-conducted psi experiments would be declared "successful" (i.e., statistically significant) by pure chance. But suppose that in a series of 100 actual psi experiments we consistently observed that 20 were successful. This is extremely unlikely to occur by chance, suggesting that psi was present in some of those studies. However, it also means that in any particular experiment, there is an 80% probability of "failure." Thus, if a critic set out to repeat a psi experiment to see if the phenomenon was "real," and the experiment failed, it would obviously be incorrect to claim on the basis of that single experiment that psi is not real because it is not repeatable.

A widely accepted method of assessing repeatability in experiments is called meta-analysis. This quantitative technique is heavily used in the social, behavioral and medical sciences to integrate research results of numerous independent experiments. Starting around 1985, meta-analyses have been conducted on numerous types of psi experiments. In many of these analyses, results indicate that the outcomes were not due to chance, or methodological flaws, or selective reporting practices, or any other plausible "normal" explanations. What remains is psi, and in several experimental realms, it has clearly been replicated by independent investigators.

 

[Constance]

Also meant to add, Steve, that I'm not surprised that Hansen comes to no conclusions about the reality status of the 'trickster'. I'd hoped he would at some point foreground that question. My impression is that the trickster notion has in our time become a convenient means of avoiding the hard questions about paranormal, supernatural, and spiritual experiences that continue to proliferate in our world -- most inconvenient phenomena in a materialist age such as ours and unwelcome challenges to those who seek to promote a materialist description of reality.

 

[Constance]

Ufology referred, in one of his posts to Steve today, to the issue of whether "the Paracast survives its latest crisis." I came across reference to that crisis, a monetary one, in another thread last night. I wish Gene Steinberg would present some details about this crisis and what amount of financial support would be needed to weather it, divided by the total number of actively participating members. It seems to me that all active members of the Paracast forum might reasonably be asked to contribute whatever minimum amount would cover the site's needs if all members made the same contribution - a kind of dues-paying, at least temporarily, to keep the site alive.

 

[Constance]

One last thought:

Tyger has mentioned a few times that it's best not to talk too much about some elements of the occult or supernatural or (pick your term) . . . Hansen touches directly on this and the idea of the taboo (lost I think on our culture) and gives some fascinating examples . . . including his own experiences . . . it's one of the things I've heard most frequently in exploring this field, everyone who has done some serious investigation seems to have experienced these effects.

I hope to hear more from Tyger about the possible motivations of occult societies in keeping information private within their memberships. I would guess that those motivations have had something to do with threats to the members of those groups from people who opposed their interests and activities.

'Taboos', ubiquitous in more primitive societies, suggest that the motivation is to maintain a distance between oneself and the unknown, especially where the unknown has been characterized as dangerous, frightening, overwhelming. Various practical reasons would exist, of course, for individuals or select groups to propagate such representations and characterizations of the 'unknown' and their own power to protect the larger social group from these unknown forces if they obeyed, paid tribute to, or otherwise cow-towed to those claiming protective power to control those forces.

The collective unconscious no doubt carries much of that history in an inchoate fashion but still capable of inspiring fear of the unknown in people of our time. That could account for a range of contemporary behaviors including the extreme resistance to psi expressed by both theists and atheists active in skeptical organizations, and indeed among some scientists.

The fact that the trickster figure in many different historical settings has often been seen as a jokester or clown suggests that people in those societies have found a way to manage their fears of the unknown by laughing at the liminal and paranormal.