Parapsychology

According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena, or of phenomena which appear to be paranormal. The term is based on the Greek para (beside/beyond), psyche (soul/mind), and logos (account/explanation) and was coined by psychologist Max Dessoir in or before 1889. Its first appearance was in an article by Dessoir in the June 1889 issue of the German publication Sphinx. J. B. Rhine later popularized "parapsychology" as a replacement for the earlier term "psychical research", during a shift in methodologies which brought experimental methods to the study of psychic phenomena. In contemporary research, the term 'parapsychology' refers to the study of psi, a general blanket term used by academic parapsychologists to denote anomalous processes or outcomes.

The scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena and the validity of scientific parapsychological research is a matter of frequent dispute and criticism. The field is regarded by some critics as a pseudoscience. Parapsychologists, in turn, say that parapsychological research is scientifically rigorous. Despite criticisms, a number of academic institutions now conduct research on the topic, employing laboratory methodologies and statistical techniques, such as meta-analysis. The Parapsychological Association is the leading association for parapsychologists and has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science since 1969.

Scope

According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology is limited in its scope to the study of three main classes of paranormal phenomena. These classes include:

There are wide variances of opinion concerning the actual status of many subjects studied in parapsychology. As an example, some parapsychologists believe that ghosts may not indicate survival, but may instead be psychic impressions left by living people.

Other reported phenomena which are sometimes labeled as paranormal, but which are outside these classifications, are considered outside the current scope of parapsychology by the association. Organizations outside the Parapsychology Association may have separate standards for determining the scope of parapsychology.

History

Main article: History of parapsychology

Parapsychology has a rich history dating back to at least the 1800s in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The forms of parapsychological research have changed over the years, and continue to change today.

Early psychical research

The rise of modern inquiry into reports of psychical phenomena coincided with the introduction of modern Spiritualism in 1848 and the movement's claims of paranormal abilities. Shortly thereafter, the Society for Psychical Research was founded in Britain (1882) and the American Society for Psychical Research was founded in the United States (1885). Spiritualism was so widespread and the reports of its effects so numerous and impressive that it was inevitable that scientists would try to study it. Early psychical researchers concerned themselves with studying mediums and other spiritualist claims. In the early 1900s, a dissatisfaction with the results of the research and political disagreements within psychic research organizations led to a new approach and a new term for the study of psychic phenomena: parapsychology.

Introduction of parapsychology

Although parapsychology has its roots in earlier field research, it began using laboratory experiments in the 1930s under the direction of J. B. Rhine (1895–1980). Rhine popularized the now famous methodology of using card-guessing and dice-rolling experiments in the laboratory in an attempt to find a statistical validation of extra-sensory perception. The experimental approach has characterized much of contemporary parapsychology.

In 1957, the Parapsychological Association was formed as the preeminent society for parapsychologists. In 1969, they became affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That affiliation, along with a general openness to psychic and occult phenomena in the 1970s, led to a decade of increased parapsychological research. During this time, other notable organizations were also formed, including the Academy of Parapsychology and Medicine (1970), the Institute of Parascience (1971), the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research, the Institute for Noetic Sciences (1973), and the International Kirlian Research Association (1975). Each of these groups performed experiments on paranormal subjects to varying degrees. Parapsychological work was also conducted at the Stanford Research Institute during this time.

The rise of organized skepticism

With the increase in parapsychological investigation, there came an increase in organized opposition to both the findings of parapsychologists and to granting of any formal recognition of the field. Criticisms of the field were focused in the founding of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (1976), now called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), and its periodical, Skeptical Inquirer. CSI continues to review parapsychological work and raise objections where they feel it is necessary.

Status of the field

Many professional scientists study parapsychology. It is an interdisciplinary field, attracting psychologists, physicists, engineers, and biologists, as well as those from other sciences. One organization involved in the field, the Parapsychological Association is an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). At present (2006) there are about 275 members in the Parapsychological Association.

It has sometimes been asserted that parapsychology is not a field of science or that it is a pseudoscience. Skeptical scholars such as Ray Hyman and James E. Alcock have said that parapsychology needs to do more theoretical work and produce results which are more easily replicable. They say that parapsychology lacks a cumulative database and that its claims are based on the rejection of the null hypothesis (they do not detect psi directly). Parapsychologists such as Jessica Utts and Dean Radin say that these objections do not consider that parapsychology has built on its previous experiments, and point to the ganzfeld experiment as one experiment which is replicable. They say that other sciences such as physics also use indirect means of detecting the phenomena they study. However, the ganzfeld experiment itself has been questioned as nothing more than an anomaly based on faulty methodology.

Among the peer-reviewed journals dealing with parapsychology are the The Journal of Parapsychology, the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, the European Journal of Parapsychology, the International Journal of Parapsychology, and the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

Parapsychology research centers include the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit based at Goldsmiths College, University of London; Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research at Princeton University; the Rhine Research Center, successor to the Duke University Parapsychology Laboratory; Institute of Noetic Sciences; Institute for Transpersonal Psychology; the Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center; Boundary Institute; Three Circles Research; Perrott-Warrick Research Unit; Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute; the Koestler Parapsychology Unit; International Society of Life Information Science; International Consciousness Research Laboratories; Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene; Division of Perceptual Studies; Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Unit; Cognitive Sciences Laboratory; Centre for Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes; Center for Functional Research; Center for Frontier Sciences; Center for Consciousness Studies; and the ASC Consortium.

According to magician, debunker and skeptic James Randi commenting on How to Think Straight About Psychology by Keith E. Stanovich:

"If Stanovich is referring to parapsychology as a pseudoscience, I disagree. It has all the structure and appearance of any other science, and must be respected as such. The fact that differentiates it from other sciences is largely that it has no history of successful experiments upon which to base conclusions."

According to skeptic James E. Alcock, "Thus, to the sceptical reader, I stress that these parapsychological writers are in our camp, the scientific camp."

In 2003 Marie-Catherine Mousseau attempted to determine whether parapsychology is a science by comparing mainstream versus Parapsychological peer-reviewed journals. Writing in the Journal of Scientific Exploration she said,

"Many efforts have been made to set up ‘‘necessary and sufficient’’ criteria for science (Chalmers, 1999), but no consensus has been reached. Why not? One might argue there are no such things as ‘‘epistemological invariants’’ for science,

that each discipline (or even each lab) could have its own rules and methods (see Zingrone, 2002). However, even if there is no clear criterion for science, there must be a way to distinguish it from pseudo-science if the latter term is to have any meaning."

According to Mousseau, it is not possible to judge whether a field is actually a science based on an examination of its results. This is because often research is done which follows the scientific method, even in the absence of sufficient evidence to form a theory.

Thus predictability and reproducibility usually bring results; results bring consensus and acceptance by mainstream science. However, this process is the final objective. A science in the making may not yet have gone through these different stages. That does not mean that it will not, that it is not science. That is why the criterion of assessing what is science by its results is not reliable.

Mousseau said that the scientific quality of the discourse in parapsychological journals is higher than the average within science. Still, possibly because of the sparsity of parapsychological results in comparison with many other fields of science, and because of a lack of theoretical knowledge which would explain parapsychological results, parapsychology is in some ways less robust as a science than some other fields. For instance, Mousseau found that parapsychological journals had a smaller number of experimental reports relative to epistemological articles. She speculated that this could be due to the difficulty of conducting parapsychological experiments. Mousseau also found that parapsychology did not meet criteria for pseudoscience, such as suppressing unfavorable data, over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, or obliviousness to alternative theories, among others. Mousseau concluded in part that

Mainstream scientists could also learn from the generally extreme rigor of their experimental approach which aims to address any kind of possible criticisms and which is necessary to separate a very elusive phenomenon from the background noise. They could learn from their concern to publish unsuccessful experiments, whereas mainstream scientists often neglect to report negative data although it can be very useful.

According to parapsychologist Carlos S. Alvarado, parapsychology has made significant contributions to other fields, in such areas as the mind-body problem, the transformative effects of parapsychological experiences, and the psychology of OBEs. Parapsychological research has helped to combat superstition and to evaluate popular claims of the paranormal. For instance, investigation of Silva Mind Control and Transcendental Meditation found no evidence to support their claims. Parapsychological researchers have pioneered statistical techniques to study phenomena. Ian Hacking argued that parapsychologists made early use of probability and randomization in their nineteenth-century studies of telepathy in the nineteenth-century. Parapsychology has contributed to the study of fraud and self-deception, such as cases of fraudulent mediumism.

Parapsychology is a frequently deprecated subject in science and the academy. Individuals who show an interest in studying psychic phenomena often say they have difficulty finding or keeping sustained employment, and that they are denied funding or the chance to publish.

For example, Cambridge physicist Brian Josephson who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1973 told The Observer, "'Yes, I think telepathy exists,' [...] 'and I think quantum physics will help us understand its basic properties.' [...] 'I think journals like Nature and Science are censoring such research,' he said. 'There is a lot of evidence to support the existence of telepathy, for example, but papers on the subject are being rejected - quite unfairly.'"

As a general rule, while trained scientists may not be as likely to believe in parapsychological phenomena as the general public, they are far from monolithic in their disbelief. Surveys of this group are rare, but in their 1994 paper in the Psychological Bulletin entitled Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an anomalous process of information transfer Daryl J. Bem and Charles Honorton quote a 1979 survey:

A survey of more than 1,100 college professors in the United States found that 55% of natural scientists, 66% of social scientists (excluding psychologists), and 77% of academics in the arts, humanities, and education believed that ESP is either an established fact or a likely possibility. The comparable figure for psychologists was only 34%. Moreover, an equal number of psychologists declared ESP to be an impossibility, a view expressed by only 2% of all other respondents (Wagner; Monnet, 1979).

A number of Nobel Laureates have been of the belief that the field of parapsychology is worthy of funding and study. Among these are Brian Josephson, Kary Mullis, and Wolfgang Pauli. Many eminent scientists from a variety of fields also support parapsychology research, such as Hans Eysenck, Robert G Jahn, Daryl Bem and Rupert Sheldrake. Despite such support, other eminent scientists have expressed their disapproval of parapsychology. For instance, physicist John Archibald Wheeler wrote to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1979 requesting that the Parapsychology Association be "expelled" from affiliation

Methodology

Parapsychology employs a number of research methods in studying the possibility of psychical phenomena. Among these is the experimental approach.

Experimental research

Main articles: Research results in parapsychology, Scientific investigation of telepathy, and Ganzfeld experiment

A number of experiments have been conducted by parapsychologists since the 1930s, utilizing a wide range of methodologies that have changed over the years. As recently as 2006, computer scientists at the University of Manchester tested the possibility of telepathy by simulating a virtual computer world in the hopes that it would eliminate other forms of communication. This constant refinement of methodologies is in response to skeptical analysis of earlier experiments that call for a higher standard of practice in parapsychology because positive results challenge well-established scientific models of the universe.

A substantial portion of parapsychologists feel that over time they have gathered at least a small amount of data from properly controlled experiments, data that they feel can be trusted for a small number of psi phenomena. A smaller group believes that a great deal of evidence has been collected, which, if it addressed more conventional phenomena, would be sufficient to provide proof. Not all parapsychologists agree, however. Some parapsychologists hold that this evidence is not definitive, but suggestive enough to warrant further research.

Contemporary parapsychology often looks at the statistical data of experiments for validation of psychic phenomena. Some experiments have tested the possibility of ESP by having subjects guess targets such as cards, pictures, or videos. There have also been many psychokinesis experiments testing the possibility that the mind can influence random number generators. Other experiments, such as the ganzfeld procedure, test for the possibility of telepathy. In these experiments, a statistical deviation from chance is seen to be evidence of psi, which parapsychologist feel indicates psychic phenomena.

According to parapsychologists such as Dean Radin, who was formerly President of the Parapsychological Association, many of these experiments have had positive results, with subjects scoring significantly above chance. He says that when analyzed using statistics, this significance has often been very high.(Radin 1997:84) The odds against chance of many of these statistical outcomes often range from one in thousands to one in trillions, which leads Radin and other parapsychologists to believe that these statistically significant results are in favor of the existence of psi, or some other unknown factor causing the deviation.

Not everyone agrees with this interpretation of parapsychological work. Although generally accepted within the parapsychology community, the statistical evidence for psychic phenomena has received strong opposition from outside sources, notably from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI). Skeptical scholars such as Ray Hyman, who was a founding member of CSI, has said that parapsychology needs to do more theoretical work and produce results which are more easily replicable. He has also said that parapsychology lacks a cumulative database, and that its claims are based on the rejection of the null hypothesis. In other words, these experiments do not detect psi directly. Other scientists, such as noted skeptic James E. Alcock, have questioned the methodology of these experiments and said there is a logical fallacy in assuming that significant departures from the laws of chance are automatically evidence that something paranormal has occurred.

Despite controversy over parapsychological work, new experiments and a refinement of older methodologies continue in the field.

Criticism

Main article: Controversy in parapsychology

Skeptics of parapsychology often hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of poor quality and not properly controlled; in the views of many skeptics, the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever. They often cite instances of fraud, flawed or potentially flawed studies, a psychological need for mysticism, or cognitive bias as ways to explain parapsychological results.

Proponents of parapsychology in turn argue that those who hold these views have not had sufficient 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.

Skeptical view

Main article: The skeptical view of parapsychology

Some critics say that the positive results of parapsychological experiments are probably due to errors such as design flaws, experimenter effects, and sometimes fraud, etc. This is partly because error is a simpler explanation of the phenomena of psi than the hypothesis that psi is real. Critics also say that a review of the history of parapsychology reveals that parapsychologists prefer to remain popular rather than reveal malfeasance within their field.

It is generally believed that in social psychology people try to maintain their social standing.

Fraud in parapsychology

Main article: Fraud in parapsychology

Some critics say that the positive results of parapsychological experiments are probably due to fraud, though they may sometimes be due to design flaws.

State of the controversies

Proponents of parapsychology claim that their subject is not controversial because it lacks valid scientific results, but rather because parapsychology touches on areas of profound human ignorance such as in physics and in the nature of consciousness, and also areas of deep meaning such as religion, superstition, and traditional beliefs.

Skeptics and parapsychologists have both noted that parapsychology could be a protoscience, one ahead of its time. However, science historian Thomas S. Kuhn has stated that scientific revolution resulting in a 'paradigm shift' in our knowledge occurs usually when pressure comes from within orthodox science itself because acknowledged anomalies generate pressure for their reduction or removal. About this, physicist M. A. Rothman has written:

"The major difficulty with the notion that parapsychology is going to produce a paradigm revolution in physics is the fact that most physicists are not unhappy with basic laws."

Parapsychologists claim that their findings to date are significant and are generating pressure for change, but they argue that the real importance of this pressure is not being acknowledged within mainstream science because of scientific dogmatism.

Some skeptics have accused scientists involved in parapsychology of being frauds and pseudoscientists who bias their results to fulfill their emotional needs.

There are at least half a dozen peer-reviewed journals of parapsychology. However, research in this area has been characterized by deception, fraud, and incompetence in setting up properly controlled experiments and evaluating statistical data (Alcock 1990; Gardner 1981; Gordon 1987; Hansel 1989; Hines 1990; Hyman 1989; Park 2000; Randi 1982)."

Proponents of parapsychology have responded that the skeptics are promoting "scientism" rather than real science by acting as if results which contradict established knowledge cannot be real. Even Marcello Truzzi, a founder of the Society for Scientific Exploration, director for the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research and founding co-chairman of the skeptical organization Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), said that

A characteristic of many scoffers is their pejorative characterization of proponents as "promoters" and sometimes even the most protoscientific anomaly claimants are labelled as "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." In their most extreme form., scoffers represent a form of quasi-religious Scientism that treats minority or deviant viewpoints in science as heresies (Truzzi, 1996).

Truzzi also stated that

Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims.[...]Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than [dis]belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label. In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved.[...]Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic.[...]Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause.[...]Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom if ever absolutely conclusive.(On Pseudo-Skepticism by Marcello Truzzi)

Skeptics have responded to criticism by saying, in the words of Carl Sagan, that "…extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Parapsychologists riposte that they have attained levels of proof which are more than sufficient to prove their results in any other field of science.

Another factor which makes parapsychology highly controversial is that there is no theory which can account for parapsychological results. Psi seems to be able to establish informational links both to the past and the future. Its effects do not seem to drop off according to the inverse square law, as with other physical forces. And information gathered using psi does not seem to require energy to facilitate its transfer. Also, there may not be any limit on the complexity of information gained by psi.

Parapsychology may also be disturbing to those who believe that to admit that psi exists would encourage, superstition, and psychic frauds, as these are based either on manifestations of psi, or on reports which are hard to distinguish from it. Skeptics wonder if this would undermine the foundations of science and reason. Some parapsychologists are also disturbed by the more popular manifestations of the allegedly paranormal.

There have been a huge number of parapsychological experiments performed under controlled laboratory conditions, according to Dean Radin Ph.D, Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, in Petaluma, California, and former President of the Parapsychological Association,

In 1993, the parapsychologist Charles Honorton, from the University of Edinburgh, considered what skeptics of psi experiments used to claim, and what they no longer claimed. He demonstrated that virtually all the skeptical arguments used to explain away psi over the years had been resolved through new experimental designs. This does not mean the experiments conducted today are “perfect,” because there is nothing perfect in the empirical sciences. But it does mean that the methods available today satisfy the most rigorous skeptical requirements for providing “exceptional evidence.” As we’ve seen, such experiments have been conducted, with successful results.(Radin 1997:208-209)

Many of these experiments have been done with the aid of skeptics of parapsychology, and also with the aid of professional conjurors, in order to eliminate as much as possible all controversies concerning the analysis of the data gathered, and to prevent fraud on the part of the subjects. Dean Radin quotes parapsychologist George Hansen as saying that

Although the public tends to view magicians as debunkers, the opposite is more the case. Birdsell (1989) polled a group of magicians and found that 82 percent gave a positive response to a question of belief in ESP. Truzzi (1983) noted a poll of German magicians that found that 72.3 percent thought psi was probably real. Many prominent magicians have expressed a belief in psychic phenomena. …. It is simply a myth that magicians have been predominantly skeptical about the existence of psi.(Radin 1997:207)

Concerning a series of computer-controlled ganzfeld experiments done by the parapsychologist Charles Honorton in the 1980s, magician Ford Kross, an officer of the Psychic Entertainers Association wrote that

In my professional capicity as a mentalist, I have reviewed Psychophysical Research Laboratories' automated ganzfeld system and found it to provide excellent security against deception by subjects.(Radin 1997:86)

Another major reason that psi has remained controversial is that parapsychologists have sometimes been fooled by hoaxes. Some parapsychological studies have been badly designed, in such a way as to permit fraud. In the case of Project Alpha, magician James Randi planted magicians as subjects of a parapsychological experiment, and they were able to fool the researchers over a prolonged period. Such methodological failures have been cited by skeptics as evidence of the probability that most if not all parapsychological results derive from error or fraud.

Andrew Greeley, a Catholic priest and a sociologist from the University of Arizona, studied surveys on belief in ESP from 1978 through 1987, and he also studied the mental health of believers in ESP. The surveys he studied showed that from 1978 through 1987, the number of American adults who reported psychic experiences rose from 58% to 67% (clairvoyance and contacts with the dead were reported by 25% of his respondents). According to Greeley, the elderly, women, widows and widowers, and the conventionally religious report a higher incidence of such experiences. He also tested the psychological well-being of people reporting mystical experiences with the "Affect Balance Scale" and found that people reporting mystical experiences received top scores. Greeley summarized his findings by writing:

People who've tasted the paranormal, whether they accept it intellectually or not, are anything but religious nuts or psychiatric cases. They are, for the most part, ordinary Americans, somewhat above the norm in education and intelligence and somewhat less than average in religious involvement.

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 of making 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[1].)

Further reading

• Parapsychology: Science or Magic? by James E. Alcock, Pergamon Press, 1981 ISBN 0-08-025773-9
• Parapsychology, by Rene Sudre, Citadel Press, NY, 1960, Library of Congress Catalog 60-13928.
• Parapsychology, by Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi, Al-Kitaab Publication, 1985.
• The Conscious Universe, by Dean Radin, Harper Collins, 1997, ISBN 0-06-251502-0.
• Entangled Minds by Dean Radin, Simon & Schuster, Paraview Pocket Books, 2006
• Parapsychology: A Concise History, by John Beloff, St. Martin's Press, 1993, ISBN 0-312-09611-9.
• Parapsychology: The Controversial Science, by Richard S. Broughton, Ballantine Books, 1991, ISBN 0-345-35638-1.
• Our Sixth Sense, by Charles Robert Richet, Rider & Co., 1937, First English Edition
• The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research, by Ray Hyman, Prometheus Books, 1989, ISBN 0-87975-504-0.
• Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Parapsychology, ed. Antony Flew, Prometheus Books, 1987, ISBN 0-87975-385-4
• The First Psychic: The Peculiar Mystery of a Victorian Wizard, by Peter Lamont, Little, Brown, UK, 2005 (Daniel Dunglas Home biography)
• Sixty Years of Psychical Research : Houdini and I Among the Spirits, by Joseph Rinn, Truth Seeker, 1950
• The Newer Spiritualism, by Frank Podmore, Arno Press, 1975, reprint of 1910 edition
• Revelations of a Spirit Medium by Harry Price and Eric J. Dingwall, Arno Press, 1975, reprint of 1891 edition by Charles F. Pigeon. This rare, overlooked, forgotten book gives the "insider's knowledge" of 19th century deceptions.
• Mediums of the 19th Century Volume Two, Book Four, Chapter One, Some Foreign Investigations by Frank Podmore, University Book, 1963, reprint of Modern Spiriritualism, 1902
• Occult and Supernatural Phenomena by D. H. Rawcliffe, Dover Publications, reprint of Psychology of the Occult, Derricke Ridgway Publishing co., 1952
• The Paranormal: The Evidence and its Implications for Concsciousness by Jessica Utts and Brian Josephson, 1996 [2]
• Milbourne Christopher, ESP, Seers & Psychics : What the Occult Really Is, Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1970, ISBN 0-690-26815-7
• Milbourne Christopher, Mediums, Mystics & the Occult by Thomas Y. Crowell Co, 1975
• Milbourne Christopher, Search for the Soul, Thomas Y. Crowell Publishers, 1979
• Georges Charpak, Henri Broch, and Bart K. Holland (tr), Debunked! ESP, Telekinesis, and Other Pseudoscience, (Johns Hopkins University). 2004, ISBN 0-8018-7867-5
• Hoyt L. Edge, Robert L. Morris, Joseph H. Rush, John Palmer, Foundations of Parapsychology: Exploring the Boundaries of Human Capability, Routledge Kegan Paul, 1986, ISBN 0710202261
• Paul Kurtz, A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology, Prometheus Books, 1985, ISBN 0-87975-300-5
• Carl Edwin Lindgren. (1974, January). Exploring Secrets of the Mind. Mississippi Educational Advance, 15-16.
• Carl Edwin Lindgren. (1977, March). The ESP Commection. The Educational Review. Madras, India, pp. 46-48
• Carl Edwin Lindgren. (1990, December). The Future of Parapsychology. Fate, pp. 60-64.
• Jeffrey Mishlove, Roots of Consciousness: Psychic Liberation Through History Science and Experience. 1st edition, 1975, ISBN 0-394-73115-8, 2nd edition, Marlowe & Co., July 1997, ISBN 1-56924-747-1 There are two very different editions. online
• D. Scott Rogo, Miracles: A Parascientific Inquiry into Wondrous Phenomena, New York, Dial Press, 1982.
• John White, ed. Psychic Exploration: A Challenge for Science, published by Edgar D. Mitchell and G. P. Putman, 1974, ISBN 0399113428
• Richard Wiseman, Deception and self-deception: Investigating Psychics. Amherst, USA: Prometheus Press. 1997
• Benjamin B. Wolman, ed, Handbook of Parapsychology, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1977, ISBN 0-442-29576-6

See also

• Anomalous phenomenon
• Clairaudience
• Clairvoyance
• Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
• Extra-sensory perception
• Ganzfeld experiment

• Haunting
• List of parapsychologists
• List of spirituality-related topics
• Near-death experience
• Out-of-body experiences
• Paranormal

• Paraphysics
• Parapsychology basic topics
• Patapsychology
• Prophecy
• Psychokinesis
• Reality shifts

• Reincarnation
• Remote viewing
• Scientific investigation of telepathy
• Telepathy
• The Bélmez Faces
• Transpersonal psychology

External links

Independent research organizations

• Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was founded in 1973 by astronaut Edgar Mitchell to explore the frontiers of consciousness through rigorous scientific research.
• Society for Psychical Research (SPR). The original scientific society founded in London in 1882.
• American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR), the oldest psychical research organization in the United States.
• Rhine Research Center and Institute for Parapsychology, originally part of Duke University, now an independent research center.
• Parapsychology Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation which provides a worldwide forum supporting the scientific investigation of psychic phenomena.
• Parapsychological Association This organisation has been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for over 20 years.
• International Academy of Consciousness
• Australian Institute of Parapsychological Research, a non-profit community association. Based in Sydney but with an Australia-wide membership base, it was established in 1977 and publishes the Australian Journal of Parapsychology.

University research organizations

• Koestler Parapsychology Unit at the University of Edinburgh.
• Parapsychology Research Group at Liverpool Hope University.
• Global Consciousness Project at Princeton
• The VERITAS Research Program at the University of Arizona
• Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Research Unit of Liverpool John Moores University.
• Center for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes at the University of Northampton.
• Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) at Princeton University.
• Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS), a unit of the Department of Psychiatric Medicine at the University of Virginia.
• Bigelow Chair of Consciousness Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV).
• Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths University of London.
• Perrott-Warrick Research Unit in the Psychology Department of the University of Hertfordshire.

Other links

• Parapsychology FAQ
• Entry on parapsychology in the Skeptic's Dictionary
• The online Library of Exploratory Science contains the complete text of many of the major peer reviewed journals in parapsychology and psychical research.