Parapsychology is a survey of the grounds to believe involving phenomenthe in which the human seems to affect or even to benefit data all about something across a means non presently potassium-argon dating inside the framework of mainstream, conventional science. Exponent of the being one phenomenthe normally assume the children to become a product of unexplained mental abilities.

Types of parapsychology
A phenomena within wonder fall into ii wide groups.

Extra-sensory perception (ESP) is also known as anomalous cognition, and includes telepathy, clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairalience, clairgustance, clairsentience, precognition, postcognition, and psychometry.

Anomalous operation includes psychokinesis (in the past known as telekinesis), out-of-body experiences, astral projection, near-death experiences, mediumship, and reincarnation.

A general term "psi phenomena" (or a somewhat older term, "psychic phenomena," which was said to exist as a "psi factor" in an experiment) covers100% one categories.

Status of the field
A standing of a field of psychic phenomenon has universally been controversial in the scientific community.

When its title indicates, psychic phenomenon is occasionally considered the sub-branch of psychology, and this has arisen historically since it taking part a learn of apparently mental faculties. Around its modern form, psychic phenomena is an interdisciplinary field, which hwhen attracted physicists, engineers, & life scientist, besides as psychologists & people from either more sciences. (For an argument that parapsychological phenomena might not as a matter of fact exist as psychological, see Peter J. King's [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shil0124/papers/parapsychology.pdf "Psychology without the 'para' (or the psychology)"] (Think 3, 2003, pp 43 53).) Parapsychology often involves the use of new and untested technologies and methods such as; neurofeedback, NLP, and past life regression etc. When such, it can eventually earn the right to become involved as a modern & proper science.

Several humans are non satisfied by using a term, & stand proposed choice, like "psi research" (similar to the older term "psychical research"), however psychic phenomena is a term that has gained the greatest acceptance now.

How science views the field
Man of science deal using tons claims with scientific skepticism. Fallowing examining psi claims for above a century, there has been important difficulty within merging the final result of psychic phenomena studies sustaining more fields of science. Following, several in the scientific community believe that psychic phenomenon is non the really science, that psi phenomena don't survive, & that psychic phenomena occurs as pseudoscience. Numerous man of science & skeptical observers of the field guess that occasionally parapsychologists wittingly commit fraud; that a bit of come incompetent person; & that occasionally come naïve & so easy deceived by fallacious participants; or even possibly some combination of the above. James Randi offered a prize of of these million dollars. Psychic functioning is non sufficiently swell established that anyone potty with success claim this money.

Parapsychologists disagree by having this assessment. Several st& been formally trained within science, and come acquainted a scientific method. Statistician Jessica Utts has shown in [http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/psipapers.html a number of papers] that:

A accurate percentage of man of science holding veto views just about psychic phenomenon is undecipherable, since researchers targeting this class action come far less most common than victims targeting a general people. Around his article [http://www.unice.fr/zetetique/anglais/a_zetetique.html Save Our Science: Paranormal Phenomena and Zetetics], sceptic Henri Broch complains:

A bit of doubter guess that there is a tendency for psychic phenomenon investigator to choose "good days" & discard "bad days" for the population in the line 1 text samples. However a "Theory of Runs" shows that the risk of an extended start of successes (or even even failures) increases drastically after a periods of profits or failure come selected when a portion of a big sample. View: Feller, William (1968), An Introduction to Probability Theory & Its Applications, vol. I personally, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, p. 86. For a supplementary recent discussion of the theory & the "arcsine law" see [http://almira.math.u-bordeaux.fr/jtnb/1996-1/manstavicius.ps] or [http://stat-www.berkeley.edu/users/peres/teach/lecture-21.ps ] Unluckily, what could sceptic come non caring of, is that a criticisms raised by statisticians rather Feller are away from date by numerous decades. That is, a prevailing experimental methodology & conventions of technical indicator analysis within psychic phenomenon use non been susceptible to such critiques since a Forties & Fifties after Feller number one raised his criticisms. View a chapter known as "Field Guide to Skepticism"[http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/guide/]in Dean Radin's (1997) Conscious Universe: A Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena" for a review of such out-to-date criticism. Radin's book also provides a review of experimental parapsychology up to 1997 that contradicts the "person-line" that many skeptics uncritically follow without having first-hand knowledge of the research literature of the field. (See Rochus Boerner's article "A Objectiveness of Science: Seven Signs of Bogus Skepticism" for some examples of skepticism/criticisms raised without a familiarity with the research literature of a field [http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/bogusskepticism.htm].)

Sociologist Andrew Greeley, studying surveys and polls since 1978, found not only that the percentage of Americans admitting to psychic experiences had increased over a decade, but that about two thirds of college professors accepted ESP, and more than 25% of "elite group man of science" believed in ESP. Other polls have shown that many scientists hold such beliefs privately but do not share such opinions publicly for fear of ridicule.

The Parapsychological Association [http://www.parapsych.org]is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). There are chairs, centers, or research units concerned with parapsychology in whole or in part at many universities around the world, as well as independent laboratories involved in parapsychology. For example, the Koestler Parapsychology Unit in the School of Psychology, Philosophy and Linguistic Sciences at the University of Edinburgh [http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/], the Parapsychology Unit of the Psychology Department at Liverpool Hope University [http://hopelive.hope.ac.uk/psychology/parapsychology.htm], the Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Unit at Liverpool John Moores University [http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/ctp/smith.html], the Center for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes at University College Northampton [http://almond.admin.nene.ac.uk:7777/portal/page?_pageid=473,2921704&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL], the Mind-Matter Unification Project at Cambridge University [http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/], and the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene of Frieburg University [http://www.igpp.de/english/welcome.html], among others. Links to other research organizations, university units, periodicals is available under the "Psi Information" section of the website of the Parapsychology Foundation [http://www.parapsychology.org/dynamic/060200.html]. Many members of these units, while not considered to be skeptics per se, investigate the phenomena of the field from the point of view of conventional hypotheses, that is, looking at psychological correlates of reports of experiences, "successful" performances in laboratory tests, as well as looking for evidentially-supported extensions to current knowledge in physics, physiology, neuropsychology and other disciplines. The bulk of the refinements to the methodological repertoire of the field of parapsychology -- both in terms of experimental method and in terms of statistical and other evaluative techniques -- have come from this segment of the community, that is, from the so-called "advocate".

A few parapsychologists are skeptics, for example Chris French and his colleagues at the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths College in London, and Richard Wiseman and his colleagues at the Perrott-Warrick Research Unit in the Psychology Department of the University of Hertfordshire, both of which units include individuals who are members of the Parapsychological Association. These researchers do not approach the field with a belief in the paranormal, but are rather interested in the purely psychological aspects of those who report paranormal experiences, along with the study of the psychology of deception, hallucination, etc. These researchers also have provided their own guidelines and input to other parapsychologists for the design of experiments and how to properly test those who claim psychic abilities. While some of these guidelines have been useful, many have suffered from a naive understanding of scientific practice in general and in parapsychology in particular, from a distorted view of the methodology actually in use in the field, and the unfortunate habit of some skeptics to make sweeping statements about the applicability of counter-hypotheses to lines of research without actually investigating the appropriateness of those counter-hypotheses to the details at hand. (See, for example a mostly-positive review of one of these guidelines written by skeptics[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_3_63/ai_60054226].)

The most important point that both proponents and skeptics raise is the need to be critical of the theory, methods, and conclusions of any one who investigates or comments on parapsychology as a science, no matter what point of view they represent. In order to be critical, one must have a first-hand knowledge of the published scientific literature in the field, and -- even more important -- have first-hand experience as an experimenter or investigator. The hands-on approach is essential to scientific progress in the field, whether one approaches it from a "paranormalist" or a "conventional theoriser" point of view. Armchair cheerleading and armchair skepticism are equally useless in science.

Interpretation of the evidence
Many scientists hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of poor quality and not properly controlled; in their view, the entire field of parapsychology has produced no results whatsoever. Frequently, however, those who hold this view have not had any contact with the published literature of the field such as that which can be found in the Journal of Parapsychology, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, or in the proceedings of the annual convention of the Parapsychological Association. Instead, they have relied on the analyses made by members of the skeptical community who, wrongly, assume that all parapsychological experiments suffer from flaws and therefore no parapsychological experiment may be considered evidential even in the weak sense of the term. Working psi researchers welcome criticisms that are based on knowledge of the peer-reviewed, published literature of the field. Criticism and blanket statements based on hearsay are not productive and not encouraged in any area of science.

Other scientists hold that there is a small amount of data from properly controlled experiments that can be trusted for a small number of psi phenomena. They hold that this evidence is not definitive, but suggestive enough to warrant further research.

Other scientists, who are familiar with the published literature of the field of parapsychology, believe that a great deal of evidence has been collected, which, if it addressed more conventional phenomena, would be sufficient to provide proof.

Criticisms of parapsychological research

Anecdotal evidence, characteristic of most of parapsychology, is inherently unreliable. Anecdotes may have natural, non-anomalous explanations such as random coincidence, fraud, imagination, or auto-suggestion.

If an experiment is not controlled to prevent fraud, then the results may not be trusted. This is especially so given the fact that many people who claimed to possess psi abilities were later proven to be frauds.

Parapsychology experiments are usually poorly designed. They often lack proper controls, allowing paths of intentional or unintentional information leakage through normal means, etc.

Parapsychology experiments are rarely replicated with positive results at independent laboratories.

Positive results in psi experiments are so statistically insignificant as to be negligible, i.e. indistinguishable from chance. For example, parapsychology may have a "file drawer" problem where a large percentage of negative results are never published, making positive results appear more significant than they actually are.

Currently unexplainable positive results of apparently sound experiments do not prove the existence of psi phenomena, i.e., normal explanations may yet be found. Concluding unexplainability from unexplainedness constitutes the well-known fallacy Argument from Ignorance.

Psi phenomena cannot be accepted as explanation of positive results until there is a widely acceptable theory of how they operate.

Parapsychologists may prefer and write selective history. The whole story may be avoided.

Parapsychology spends too much time simply trying to show that certain phenomena occur, and too little time trying to explain them — yet it's explanation that constitutes the heart of scientific enquiry, and wider, scientific acceptance of parapsychological phenomena would come only with the provision of explanation. (See King (2003) cited above.)

Responses from parapsychologists to criticisms

The hard evidence for psi phenomena today is founded on repeatable experiments and not anecdotal evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is considered valid in law and many other fields. The validity of anecdotal evidence does not depend upon the opinion of those listening to it.

There is no such thing as a completely foolproof experiment in any field of science, and it is unreasonable to hold parapsychology to a higher standard of epistemology than the other sciences. Fraud and incompetence in parapsychology is addressed in the same way it is addressed in any other field of science: repeating experiments at multiple independent laboratories; publishing methods and results in order to receive critical feedback and design better protocols, etc.

Experimental protocols have been continually improved over time, sometimes with the direct assistance of noted skeptics. Meta-analyses show that the significance of the positive results have not declined over time, but instead have remained fairly constant.

There are certain phenomena which have been replicated with odds against chance far beyond that required for acceptance in any other science. Meta-analyses show that these cannot be accounted for by any file drawer problem.

Anomalous phenomena do not disappear for lack of a theory. There have been many instances in the history of science where the observation of an anomalous phenomenon came before an explanatory theory, and some commonly accepted non-psi phenomena today still lack a perfectly satisfactory, undisputed theory. For instance, in the past, those who sighted meteors falling to the earth were dismissed as madmen or false prophets.

Theories abound in parapsychology for aspects of psi phenomena, though there is not any one that is comprehensive and widely accepted within parapsychology.

It is not necessary to be a licensed psychiatrist or acquainted with clinical psychology to test the validity of psi. The field of parapsychology overlaps many disciplines, including physics and biology, and often physicists, engineers and others trained in the hard sciences, in conjunction with stage magicians and other experts in deception, are in a better position to design experiments for certain types of phenomena than are psychiatrists or psychologists.

The opinion of parapsychologists regarding the overall evaluation of the body of evidence to date is divided. As noted above, some parapsychologists are skeptic and do not believe that there is anything observed so far which cannot ultimately be explained within the existing framework of known science. Probably a majority of parapsychologists believe in the likelihood, or at least the possibility, of actual psi phenomena, though there is a range of attitudes toward the evidence.

Regarding the evidence, the rule of the thumb of the skeptical community is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Since skeptics may consider paranormal claims extraordinary, they may think that the evidence needs to be better than what normally would be required. However, this puts the responsibility for investigating seemingly paranormal phenomena squarely on the shoulders of proponents and "internal" skeptics. Not only is research conducted by "external" critics and skeptics useful to the field as a whole, but it also imparts a kind of craft knowledge to critics and skeptics that makes their criticism and counter-hypotheses more productive and more useful. Further many of the counter-hypotheses proposed by skeptics are so unparsimonious as to be extraordinary claims as well, and in that case, those counter-hypothesis, also require extraordinary evidence. Sadly, given the Zeitgeist in science today which treats even the study of seemingly paranormal phenomena as taboo, the extraordinary/unparsimonious claims of the skeptics are accepted uncritically, without investigation. See an article by the late sociologist and skeptic Marcello Truzzi which is relevant to this topic [http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/practices.htm].

Most people use this approach to evidence in everyday life. For instance, if the news reports that the president of the USA has just arrived in South Korea for a state visit, most people will take this at face value. The news is considered a fairly reliable source of information, and the president visiting a country such as South Korea is not an extraordinary claim. However, if the same news broadcast later mentioned that a 92-year-old man has improved the world record time on the marathon by half an hour, many reasonable people would require more evidence, even despite the assumed reliability of the source, since the claim is extraordinary. This analogy might be flawed, however. In the case of the 92 year old man, we have positive evidence gained from a lifetime of experience and the reassurance of physiologists that this feat is indeed extraordinary (i.e., improbable). When it comes to parapsychology, however, some would argue we have no positive evidence that it is improbable, only our own cultural bias and a subjective sense that Psionic powers are extraordinary. Hence, some would argue, it is not the sort of extraordinary claim which necessarily needs more evidence than a mundane claim.

Some parapsychologists agree with critics that the field has not yet reached the degree of consistent repeatability of experimental results needed for general consensus. John Beloff, in his book Parapsychology: A Concise History, notes the evanescent – some have said the apparently evasive – nature of psychic phenomena over time, and that the range of phenomena observable in a given era seems to be culturally dependent.

For example, in earlier times, psychic research studied physical phenomena demonstrated by spiritualist mediums that, according to the reports passed down to us in the literature, far surpassed anything that any of today's "psychics" can demonstrate. Skeptics consider this more evidence of the non-existence of psi phenomena. Frequently this particular claim is the result of the proponent community having cut itself off, because of political pressures of conforming to the scientific Zeitgeist, from the community of modern mediums and psychics who operate today. Whether or not the phenomena being exhibited by modern day mediums can provide proof of traditional notions of spirituality or can be attributed to the operation of mundane psychological processes is mostly an open question, due to the lack of research. So it is possible that physical phenomena is being exhibited today, but to what cause the effects may be attributed is an open question, even among parapsychologists.

Yet many people, such as Beloff, cannot easily dismiss the entirety of all the positive accounts – so many of which came from the experts of their day (including scientists and conjurers), many of whom began as noted skeptics – and so believe that continued research in the field is justified.

Other parapsychologists, such as Dean Radin and supporters such as statistician Jessica Utts, take the stance that the existence of certain psi phenomena has been reasonably well established in recent times through repeatable experiments that have been replicated dozens to hundreds of times at labs around the world.

They refer to meta-analyses of psi experiments that conclude that the odds against chance (null hypothesis) of experimental results far exceeds that commonly required to establish results in other fields, sometimes by orders of magnitude.

Indeed, many parapsychologists have moved on from proof-oriented research, intended primarily to verify the existence of psi phenomena, to "run-oriented" research, intended to explore the parameters and characteristics of psi phenomena. Time will tell whether these results prove to be evanescent as well. Unfortunately, what complicates the "instance may tell" hope that many skeptics and proponents have is the lack of funds available for research from either the conventional or the "paranormalist" perspectives, and the negative impact on career advancement that an interest in these phenomena -- even from a skeptical point of view -- can have.

Early Scientific American challenge
The offering of prizes for demonstrations is not new to the field. Circa 1924, Scientific American magazine offered a $5000 prize to anyone who could produce any "seeable psychic manifestation." Medium Mina Crandon, known in the literature as "Margery," made a bid and was tested by a committee set up by the editorial staff. Her performance was such that the committee members were split in their opinions. The magazine published the mixed report in its November 1924 issue, no prize was awarded, and the competition was declared closed the following year. In the early 1900s, the then well-known stage magician and skeptic Howard Thurston was sufficiently impressed by the demonstrations of medium Eusapia Palladino that he advertised in the New York Times his offer of $1000 to charity in the name of any fellow conjurer who could duplicate the feats of Ms. Palladino under similar conditions. He had no takers.

Other objections to parapsychology

There are a variety of other objections to parapsychology as well.

Psi Phenomena as a Violation of the Laws of Physics or Nature Parapsychology as Taboo Parapsychology as a Danger to Society Even "insiders" in the parapsychological community worry about the possible harm that naive belief in paranormal phenomena can have on individuals, on culture and on societies. A great deal of effort has been put into the notion of developing expertise in dealing with reported experiences both in a clinical sense, and as a topic of investigation. Unfortunately organized skepticism and the "taboo" that exists against serious research on such phenomena has impeded the ability of many researchers -- both skeptics and proponents -- from doing the kinds of research that would allow evidence-based therapeutic interventions.

Although under the heading 'paranormal phenomena' the report lists topics such as astrology, UFOs, and the Loch Ness Monster, it also lumps in belief in ESP and, by implication, most parapsychology.

Parapsychology as a Waste of Resources History and evaluation

See history of parapsychology.

Trivia

German psychiatrist Hans Berger originally invented the electroencephalograph (EEG) in 1929 as a tool to study whether telepathy might be explained by brain waves. The first and only Ph.D. in Parapsychology awarded by the University of California, Berkeley was to Dr Jeffrey Mishlove in 1980. Subsequently some activists unsuccessfully lobbied the Berkeley administration to revoke the degree. [http://www.psi-researchcentre.co.uk/biography.html Reportedly,] as many as 46 people in the UK have doctorates in parapsychology. However, this is a myth. In fact, with the exception of Dr. Mishlove, mentioned above, the so-called "46 humans in the UK" have doctorates in other disciplines, principally in psychology, but completed doctoral thesis work which included or were devoted to research projects in parapsychology. Such individuals are also expected to be competent in the disciplines in which they received their degrees. Examples of these individuals include: Dr. Richard Wiseman, Dr. Richard Broughton, Dr. Deborah Delanoy, Dr. Chris Roe, Dr. Simon Sherwood, Dr. Matthew Smith, Dr. Carl Williams, Dr. Christine Simmonds, Dr. Susan Blackmore, Dr. Serena-Roney Dougall, among others. Patent #5830064, "Apparatus & method for distinguishing cases which conjointly exceed risk expectations & thereby controlling an output," was granted by the US Patent Office on Nov 3rd, 1998 to inventors including several researchers from the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) center. The patent in no way relies on the existence of psi phenomena, but in the description the inventors do suggest that "A single applicatiin of the present invention is the investigation of anomalous interaction between an operator even & random physical systems, whether by good man of science or curious members of the public world health organization would rather to conduct experiments on their have."

Famous parapsychologists
Rais Amrohvi Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi Hans Bender Susan Blackmore William Crookes Max Dessoir Thomas Edison Gustave Geley John Hasted Charles Honorton Robert G. Jahn William James - founding father of American Psychology Brian Josephson - Nobel Prize in Physics, 1973 Oliver Lodge William McDougall Jeffrey Mishlove Edgar Mitchell Gardner Murphy Frederick W. H. Myers Julian Ochorowicz Harry Price Andrija Puharich Harold E. Puthoff Dean Radin - Author of The Conscious Universe, which examines the scientific evidence in parapsychology. Jim D. Ray Carl Reichenbach Joseph B. Rhine Charles Robert Richet Carl Sargent Helmut Schmidt Albert von Schrenck-Notzing Gary Schwartz-Has stated he has scientific proof of established contact with the dead Stephan Schwartz Henry Sidgwick Ian Stevenson Ingo Swann Wilhelm Heinrich Carl Tenhaeff Mark Twain G. N. M. Tyrrell Alfred Russel Wallace

Other names who have contributed to this field
The following are famous primarily for fields other than parapsychology but still had important working interests in the field: Hans Eysenck Alister Hardy Carl Jung Arthur Koestler Rupert Sheldrake

Claimed psychics
Sylvia Browne — received the Pigasus award, Category #4 for 2004 for claiming to "see" in July, 2004 that Osama Bin Laden was dead, predicting in 2003 that Saddam Hussein would be found dead by year's end, and other triumphs. Sylvia won in category #2 in 2003. Kuda Bux firewalker Edgar Cayce — claimed to be a psychic healer in the first half of the 20th century. Miss Cleo Mina Margery Crandon — last noted physical medium in the USA and widely thought to be fraudulent Gerard Croiset Jeane Dixon William and Horatio Eddy — 19th Century Vermont psychics. Their spirit cabinet performances were very similar to that of the famous Davenport Brothers. This tradition is carried on by the team of Glenn Falkenstein and Frances Willard. Tom Rannachan — Scottish "Psychic Medium" who claims to talk with the dead & receive accurate premonitions. John Edward — Host of TV show "Crossing On top" in which he claimed to communicate with the dead. Leslie Flint Uri Geller — Israeli telekinetic, famous for bending handled spoons in television shows. Traveled the world with his confederates, who sometimes posed as news reporters. He was deported from Israel, his home country. Stuart Harary probably means Keith Harary, OBEr D. D. Home Jim Jones — claimed to perform healings. He was the leader of the People's Temple that committed mass suicide in 1978 Joseph McMoneagle Former US Army intelligence officer, currently a corporate remote viewer Wolf Messing David Morehouse Government remote viewer Dr. Mysterian Stephan Ossowiecki Ted Owens — claimed to have the ability in predicting and controlling weather, earthquakes, and volcanoes through psychokinesis Eusapia Palladino— accused of using her foot to levitate table and other deceptions by conjurers in hiding who watched her methods at close hand. (Rinn, 1950) Leonore Piper Pat Price, government remote viewer Sathya Sai Baba, Indian guru; materialization of small objects JoJo Savard S. G. Soal Ingo Swann, involved in the formation of the remote viewing procedure. Alex Tannous James Van Praagh Rev. B. Anne Gehman

Critics of parapsychology
Susan Blackmore — Stopped lecturing and abandoned parapsychology altogether, because she could no longer endure the near fanatic and rude behavior of both believers and non-believers. Milbourne Christopher — Noted Conjuring Historian. His works are frequently overlooked. Ray Hyman- Conjurer and noted research psychologist James Randi Ehrich Weiss (Harry Houdini)

Psychic investigations
Remote viewing (includes Stargate project) Global Consciousness Project