Extra-sensory perception
Encyclopedia : E : EX : EXT : Extra-sensory perception
Extra-sensory perception, or ESP, is an alleged ability to acquire information by means other than the known senses, eg. taste, sight, touch, smell, hearing, balance and proprioception. The term implies sources of information unknown to science.
Types of ESP
Specific types of extra-sensory perception include:
- Perception of events in other places (clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairgustance, clairsentience) and in other times (precognition, retrocognition, second sight)
- Perception of aspects of others not perceivable by most people (aura reading)
- The ability to sense communications from, and communicate with, people far away (telepathy), beyond the grave (mediumship, séancing, and spirit walking), or in other dimensions (astral projection)
A person capable of using ESP is referred to as a psychic or as having psychic powers.
History of ESP
The notion of extra-sensory perception existed in antiquity. In many ancient cultures, such powers were ascribed to people who purported to use them for second sight or communicate with deities, ancestors, spirits, etc.Extra-sensory perception and hypnosis
When Franz Anton Mesmer and Grigori Rasputin were first popularizing hypnosis, the legend came about that a person who was hypnotized would be able to demonstrate ESP. Carl Sargent, a psychology major at the University of Cambridge, heard about the early claims of a hypnosis-ESP link, and designed an experiment to test whether they had merit. He recruited forty fellow college students, none of whom identified him- or herself as having ESP, and then divided them into a group that would be hypnotized before being tested with a pack of 25 Zener cards, and a control group that would be tested with the same Zener cards. The control subjects averaged a score of 5 out of 25 right, exactly what chance would indicate. The subjects who were hypnotized did more than twice as well, averaging a score of 11.9 out of 25 right. Sargent's own interpretation of the experiment is that ESP is associated with a relaxed state of mind and a freer, more atavistic level of consciousness.
This experiment was later shown to have been conducted without normal experimental controls. Subsequent experiments using normal experimental controls have not reproduced Sargent's results or any indication of the existence of ESP.
J.B.Rhine
In the 1930s, at Duke University in North Carolina, J. B. Rhine and his wife Louisa tried to transform psychical research into an experimental science. To avoid the connotations of hauntings and the seance room, they renamed it "parapsychology". While Louisa Rhine concentrated on collecting accounts of spontaneous cases, J. B. Rhine worked largely in the laboratory, carefully defining terms such as ESP and psi, and designing experiments to test them. A simple set of cards was developed, originally called Zener cards (after their designer)—but now called ESP cards. They bear the symbols circle, square, wavy lines, cross, and star; there are five cards of each in a pack of 25.In a telepathy experiment the "sender" looks at a series of cards while the "receiver" guesses the symbols. To try to observe clairvoyance, the pack of cards is hidden from everyone while the receiver guesses. To try to observe precognition, the order of the cards is determined after the guesses are made.
In all such experiments the order of the cards must be random so that hits are not obtained through systematic biases or prior knowledge. At first the cards were shuffled by hand, then by machine. Later, random number tables were used and nowadays, computers. An advantage of ESP cards is that statistics can easily be applied to determine whether the number of hits obtained is higher than would be expected by chance. Rhine used ordinary people as subjects and claimed that, on average, they did significantly better than chance expectation. Later he used dice to test for PK and also claimed results that were better than chance.
Rhine's controversial 1940 book, Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years, led others to criticize his methods and to try to repeat his findings. Most failed, including the London mathematician Samuel Soal, who tried for five years without success. Eventually he re-analysed many of his results and found that one subject was apparently performing precognition. In the early 1950s, further tests with this subject, under tightly controlled conditions, gave statistically significant results—convincing many people that Rhine was right. Accusations and counter-claims abounded until, in 1978, it was finally proven that Soal had cheated and the results were worthless. However, many people had been convinced by these results for nearly 30 years.
Other parapsychologists found that some subjects scored below chance (psi-missing); scores tended to decline during testing (the "decline effect"); and people who believed in psi, called "sheep", scored better than those who did not believe in it ("goats")—which became known as the sheep-goat effect. However, none of these effects proved easy to replicate. In recent years parapsychologists have turned to other methods, notably free-response ESP tests and micro-PK.
Modern Day ESP Investigation
People are currently investigating this phenomena today, such as the scientist Dean Radin . For fifteen years he has investigated psi phenomena through appointments at Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, SRI International, Boundary Institute, and Interval Research Corporation. He is presently Laboratory Director at the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Petaluma, California.
Ongoing debates about the existence of ESP
Proponents of the existence of ESP point to numerous scientific studies that appear to offer evidence of the phenomenon's existence: the work of J. B. Rhine, Russell Targ, Harold E. Puthoff and physicists at SRI International in the 1970s, are often cited in arguments that ESP exists. Books such as James Randi's The Truth About Uri Geller, which examines the claims of the titular psychic, point out that these studies were not conducted with proper scientific controls, and that when alleged psychics such as Gellar are tested with such controls in place, they cannot produce results greater than would be accounted for by chance.
In general, numerous ESP studies have failed to find any evidence of the phenomenon. Those studies that have produced apparent evidence of its existence are marred by methodological flaws. [www.skepdic.com] Proponents of ESP claim that the phenomena is a "taboo" subject in the scientific and rationalist communities, resulting in sociological rather than scientific barriers to research.
Difficulties testing ESP
It has been suggested that ESP may have a subtle rather than an overt effect, and that the ability to perceive may be altered by the nature of the event being perceived. For example, some proponents of ESP put forward that predicting whether a loved one was just involved in a car crash might have a stronger effect than sensing which playing card was drawn from a deck, even though the latter is better suited for scientific studies. This, in part, is why scientists remain skeptical, although proponents of ESP such as biologist Rupert Sheldrake point to cases of ESP involving subjects who are familiar with each other that they believe indicate a positive demonstration of the ability. [link]. Critics respond to Sheldrake's claims by arguing that his experiments are methodologically flawed and lack proper controls such as sufficient randomization, that they are not peer-reviewed, and as such, that they are not scientifically reliable. Sheldrake has responded to many critics; for example, explaining that he has tried countless randomization techniques, often employing methods suggested by critics, still obtaining results greater than chance each time. The Responses to 14 of his critics are in the Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS Vol 12 No. 6, 2005). There are no consistent and agreed-upon standards by which ESP powers may be tested, in the way one might test for, say, electrical current or the chemical composition of a substance. Often, when self-proclaimed psychics are challenged by skeptics and fail to prove their alleged powers, they assign all sorts of reasons for their failure, such as that the skeptic is affecting the experiment with "negative energy." The non-empirical nature of this response, as well as the practice of charlatanry in ESP and psychic circles [www.rickross.com], is why scientists and rationalists conclude that the existence of the phenomena cannot be established scientifically.There is some dispute over the interpretation of results obtained in scientific studies of ESP, as the most compelling and repeatable results are all small to moderate statistical results. Critics of ESP argue that the results are too small to be significant, while proponents of ESP argue that the results are consistent in numerous studies. The combined significance is large and considered to be further proof by proponents. That an inordinately large number of trials must be conducted to obtain statistically significant results is seen as a problem for verifying the legitimacy of ESP claims. However other areas of science, such as the medical field, rely heavily on this method of data collection. For example, the statistical results of the positive affect of aspirin on the heart are less than many ESP results. [link]
General criticism
Claims of extra-sensory perception have been subjected to repeated criticism by mainstream scientists, and most of the scientific community believes that claims of ESP constitute pseudoscience. [[Citing sources citation needed]] Most of the criticism hinges on two major contentions: first, that studies which have shown evidence of ESP are often either anecdotal or plagued with methodological flaws which allowed cheating, and second, that the results of studies which are not flawed show no evidence of ESP.
Sometimes, the failure of an ESP experiment can be inaccurate and portrayed incorrectly through popular news media. An example of this case is that of a dog in England named Jaytee, who his owners claimed had an ability to sense when one of them was leaving work to come home (which he allegedly displayed by running out to the porch at that time). Rupert Sheldrake tested JayTee extensively, including more than 50 videotaped trials, and claimed that his tests had shown that the dog had ESP ability. Two skeptical scientists from the University of Hertfordshire, Richard Wiseman and Matthew Smith, then used Sheldrake's video camera setup, conducted only 4 trials of their own, and claimed that the dog had no such ability. Wiseman and Smith concluded that while Jaytee made several trips to the window during the day, the action was more in response to having heard some kind of noise outside.[news.bbc.co.uk] However, Sheldrake believes the data they collected actually matched his own convincingly. [amethodnotaposition.blogspot.com] Sheldrake has commented on the experiment conducted by Wiseman:
- "As in my own experiments, he sometimes went to the window at other times, for example to bark at passing cats, but he was at the window far more when Pam was on her way home than when she was not. In the three experiments Wiseman did in Pam's parents' flat, Jaytee was at the window an average of 4% of the time during the main period of Pam's absence, and 78% of the time when she was on the way home. This difference was statistically significant" [www.sheldrake.org]
The Challenges
The Randi Prize
James Randi, was a founding fellow and prominent member of CSICOP. He made his name and fortune as a stage magician, and later became a skeptic devoted to investigating the claims of performers who pretended to offer more than a good show. In 1996, he set up the James Randi Educational Foundation to investigate paranormal phenomena and educate the public about them. The foundation has famously made a standing offer of a $1 million prize to anyone who could demonstrate ESP or any psychic phenomenon.As of 2005, no would-be claimants have passed Randi's preliminary test (which has a lower significance level than the formal test), and no offers to conduct a formal test have been extended by the Foundation.
Some have criticized Randi manner of responding to people claiming to have a paranormal ability as heavy handed and rude, complaining that his method of choosing who is accepted for testing allows JREF full control over who is and who isn't tested, pointing to his refusal to test an alleged Breatharian claiming to be able to live without food or water as an example. [www.alternativescience.com] Randi has responded that he will not test certain claims such as this, not only because science conclusively makes the falsity of them obvious, but because testing such a claimant would jeopardize the applicant's safety. [www.randi.org]
There are also those who believe that Randi is not an honest investigator, citing his inaccurate description of Sheldrake's investigation into dogs who know when their owner is coming home.[amethodnotaposition.blogspot.com] Randi responded in his January 17, 2003 weekly commentary by admitting that had made an error in that case by overstating his position based on a small amount of preliminary information, and that he had apologized for it, but that his subsequent attempts to test Sheldrake's claims have been ignored[www.randi.org]. Others accuse his offer being merely a PR stunt. Randi's response to these criticisms has been to point out that they are commonly made by believers in the paranormal who wish to discredit him, and that as a tax-exempt organization, his foundation is obliged to provide proof of their financial accountability. [www.randi.org] Some of Randi's opponents, like Sylvia Browne, have openly claimed that Randi does not actually have the money. [www.randi.org] Others, such as Dennis Rawlins, question Randi's good faith in agreeing to pay the money should a paranormal claim be adequately proven, with Rawlins having quoted Randi as saying, "I always have an out" with regards to the prize. [www.skepticalinvestigations.org] There is no direct way to confirm Randi indeed made the quote attributed to him by Rawlins, and the quote appears in none of Randi's books or other writings. However, supporters of Randi claim to have corresponded with him, and that Randi acknowledges saying those words, but claims the "out" is not that he does not intend to pay the prize in the event that the criteria for the challenge are met, but merely that the proper controls ensured by the challenge preclude claimants from cheating. Regarding the mistrust that paranormal believers have concerning Randi's fairness [www.sheldrake.org], he has pointed out that to fail to pay the prize money to a claimant who successfully and legitimately passes the test would open up the JREF to criminal prosecution, due to laws requiring tax exempt organizations to maintain financial transparency in the form of documents such as annual reports and the JREF's 990 tax file. Failure to comply with these laws, Randi points out, would result in investigation, penalties and incarceration by the Internal Revenue Service. [www.randi.org]
The Zetetic challenge
The zetetics laboratory, the French center of CSICOP, is based at the University of Nice Sophia-Antipolis and conducts research into paranormal phenomena. From 1987 to 2002, they offered an International Zetetic Challenge in an attempt to prove or disprove the existence of, or demonstrate events related to, the paranormal. This was a €200,000 prize offered to "any person who could prove any paranormal phenomenon."While there were a number of attempts at the prize, and a number of investigations were made, the prize went unclaimed.
See also
References
- "Psychic dog phenomenon brought back down to earth". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/155928.stm Accessed on December 9, 2004.
- Myers, David G. Psychology. http://www.davidmyers.org/esp/ Accessed on December 9, 2004. The information concerning the Randi Foundation tests appears in this book.
- [The Truth About Uri Geller] by James Randi
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.