Parapsychology: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:07, 13 January 2006

Parapsychology is the study of the evidence of mental awareness or influence of external objects without interaction from known physical means. Most objects of study fall within the realm of "mind-to-mind" influence (such as extra-sensory perception and telepathy), "mind-to-environment" influence (such as psychokinesis) and "environment-to-mind" (such as hauntings).

The premiere professional organization, the Parapsychological Association (PA), is a member in good standing of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). However, the scientific validity of parapsychology research is a matter of frequent dispute and criticism.

Types of parapsychology

The phenomena in question fall into two broad groups.

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

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

The general term "psi phenomena" (or the somewhat older term, "psychic phenomena," which was said to be the "psi factor" in an experiment) covers all of these categories.

Status of the field

The standing of the field of parapsychology has always been controversial within the scientific community.

As its name indicates, parapsychology is sometimes considered a sub-branch of psychology, and this has arisen historically since it involved the study of apparently mental faculties. In its modern form, parapsychology is an interdisciplinary field, which has attracted physicists, engineers, and biologists, as well as psychologists and those from other sciences. (For an argument that parapsychological phenomena may not in fact be psychological, see Peter J. King's "Parapsychology 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. As such, it may yet earn the right to be included as a modern and proper science.

Many people are not satisfied with the term, and have proposed alternatives, such as "psi research" (similar to the older term "psychical research"), but parapsychology is the term that has gained the greatest acceptance today.

How science views the field

In the scientific disciplines there is a belief that all claims should be treated with scientific skepticism. Mainstream science believes that after examining psi claims for over a century, there has been significant difficulty in merging the results of parapsychology studies with other fields of science. As a result, many in the scientific community think that parapsychology is not a real science, that psi phenomena do not exist, and that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. Many scientists and skeptical observers of the field believe that some parapsychologists knowingly commit fraud; that some are incompetent or misled by their own hopes or desires; and that some are naïve and therefore easily deceived by fraudulent participants; or perhaps some combination of the above. One of the most famous cases in psychology that illustrates being misled by one's hopes is that of Clever Hans. Mr. Wilhelm von Osten [1] did not mean to defraud anyone, but he fooled himself and large audiences nevertheless.

Parapsychologists disagree with this assessment. Many have been formally trained in science, and are familiar with the scientific method. Statistician Jessica Utts has shown in a number of papers that:

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted."[2]

The precise percentage of scientists holding negative views about parapsychology is unclear, since surveys targeting this group are far less common than those targeting the general population. In his article Save Our Science: Paranormal Phenomena and Zetetics, skeptic Henri Broch complains:

"These data are based on an investigation on the belief in parasciences among Frenchmen (published in 1986). [...] Contrary to what might have been thought, the level of belief in the paranormal is directly proportional to the level of education, whatever the religious persuasion may be. Those with higher scientific degrees fare slightly better, although their level of belief is superior to [greater than] the average!"

Some skeptics believe that there is a tendency for parapsychology researchers to select "good days" and discard "bad days" for the people in the test samples. But the "Theory of Runs" shows that the chance of a long run of successes (or failures) increases drastically when the periods of success or failure are selected as part of a larger sample. See: Feller, William (1968), An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, vol. I, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, p. 86. For a more recent discussion of the theory and the "arcsine law" see [3] or [4] Unfortunately, what many skeptics are not aware of, is that the criticisms raised by statisticians like Feller are out of date by many decades. That is, the prevailing experimental methodology and conventions of statistical analysis in parapsychology have not been susceptible to such critiques since the 1940s and 1950s when Feller first raised his criticisms. See the chapter called "Field Guide to Skepticism"[5]in Dean Radin's (1997) Conscious Universe: The 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 "party-line" that many skeptics uncritically follow without having first-hand knowledge of the research literature of the field. (See Rochus Boerner's article "The Objectivity of Science: Seven Signs of Bogus Skepticism" for some examples of skepticism/criticisms raised without a familiarity with the research literature of a field [6].)

Wagner and Monnet conducted a survey of 1100 college professors in 1979 and found that 34% of psychologists, 55% of natural scientists, 66% of other social scientists, and 77% of professors in the humanities believe that ESP is either an established fact or likely possibility. (Zetetic Scholar 5, 1979) Andrew Greeley, a sociologist from the University of Arizona, studied surveys on belief in ESP from from 1978 through 1987, and 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%. 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. [7]

The Parapsychological Association [8]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 [9], the Parapsychology Unit of the Psychology Department at Liverpool Hope University [10], the Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology Unit at Liverpool John Moores University [11], the Center for the Study of Anomalous Psychological Processes at University College Northampton [12], the Mind-Matter Unification Project at Cambridge University [13], and the Institut für Grenzgebiete der Psychologie und Psychohygiene of Frieburg University [14], among others. Links to other research organizations, university units, periodicals is available under the "Psi Info" section of the website of the Parapsychology Foundation [15]. 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 "proponents".

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[16].)

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 an objective professional, one must have a first-hand knowledge of the vast past and present published scientific literature in the field, primary and scholarly sources of its age whenever possible, and -- even more important -- have first-hand experience as an experimenter or investigator and a respect for the art of conjuring and its masters. The hands-on approach is essential to scientific progress in the field, whether one approaches it from a "paranormalist" or a "conventional theorist" point of view. Selective and historically uninformed armchair cheerleading and armchair skepticism are equally useless in all fields of inquiry and 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 inexplicable positive results of apparently sound experiments do not prove the existence of psi phenomena, i.e., normal explanations may yet be found. Concluding inexplicability from lack of existing explanation 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 is 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 [17].

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 "process-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 "time will 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 "visible 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, four negative to one positive 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 Howard Thurston, who had earlier studied to be a medical missionary, was impressed by the mysterious table lifting demonstrations of medium Eusapia Palladino. He advertised in the New York Times his offer of $1000 to charity in the name of any fellow conjuror who could duplicate this feat. He had no takers. In 1910 Eusapia Palladino publicily acknowledged she used tricks to an American reporter. Today many methods of table lifting and other seance secrets are well known to master conjurors, but kept secret as demanded by their art.

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

Some critics claim that the existence of psi phenomena would violate "the known laws of physics", and some of these critics believe that this is reason enough that such phenomena should not be studied. Parapsychologists respond that "laws of nature" are simply summaries of existing scientific knowledge and do get revised from time to time during the course of scientific progress, in addition they are not so well understood that with them one could confidently predict the non existence of Psi (Consider quantum mechanics). If the existence of psi phenomenon were ever proved, explaining how they work might require revising or extending the known laws of physics. Precognition, for example, would challenge commonly held notions about causality and the unidirectional nature of time. However, these commonly held notions are often not physical laws, and are already being challenged by modern physical theories, quite apart from psi phenomena. Skeptics and parapsychologists alike generally agree that, as per Occam's Razor, simple explanations should be preferred for any resulting theories of psi. Some parapsychologists are critical of skeptics' frequently-uninvestigated claims about fraud, or the application of conventional hypotheses specifically because these claims are unparsimonious. Conventional explanations, many parapsychologists believe, should also conform to Occam's Razor. Then there are others, both skeptics and proponents, who agree that even in mainstream science nature itself is frequently unparsimonious.

Parapsychology as Taboo

Some believe that paranormal phenomena should not be studied, either because they are forbidden by their religious orientation, or because they believe that to do so opens the investigators to some sort of "spiritual attack". Parapsychology is also seen as a taboo subject in science and the academy and individuals who show an interest in studying seemingly psychic phenomena, even from a skeptical point of view, often find themselves losing or being pushed out of employment, or denied funding. Anthropologist of science, David J. Hess, has written on this topic.[18]

Parapsychology as a Danger to Society

Some believe that parapsychology should not be pursued because it somehow represents a danger to society. As is stated in the Y2000 NSF report Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience^[19]:

"Concerns have been raised, especially in the science community, about widespread belief in paranormal phenomena. Scientists (and others) have observed that people who believe in the existence of paranormal phenomena may have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Their beliefs may indicate an absence of critical thinking skills necessary not only for informed decision making in the voting booth and in other civic venues (for example, jury duty), but also for making wise choices needed for day-to-day living."

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

Some believe that parapsychology should not be funded because it is a waste of resources that would be better spent on other activities. Some of these critics feel so strongly about this that they engage in activism to try to prevent or remove funding from psi research. Psychic detectives may waste valuable police resources. One of the negative -- and probably unintended -- consequences of this point of view is that while 10% of the world's population or over 400 million individuals on the planet, may experience what they believe are psychic phenomena, and may suffer in their daily lives from psychological problems caused by their experiences, few scientists on the planet are able to find the resources to really investigate the phenomena, and therefore very little real knowledge exists that can be used to help these experiencers. While even most parapsychologists would agree there are more urgent problems to solve, having no research address these reported experiences does a grave disservice to people everywhere.

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. 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 people 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. Susan Blackmore, Dr. Richard Broughton, Dr. Deborah Delanoy, Dr. Serena-Roney Dougall, Dr. Chris Roe, Dr. Simon Sherwood, Dr. Christine Simmonds, Dr. Matthew Smith, Dr. Carl Williams, Dr. Richard Wiseman,

among others.

Patent #5830064, "Apparatus and method for distinguishing events which collectively exceed chance expectations and 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 "One application of the present invention is the investigation of anomalous interaction between an operator and random physical systems, whether by serious scientists or curious members of the public who would like to conduct experiments on their own."
Through out the history of the investigations of physical mediums there seems to be no record of simply applying wet paint to a medium's hands and feet to assure control and eliminate fraud.
Joseph B. Rhine began examining psychic abilities after hearing, and being deeply impressed, by a lecture given by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, about the scientific reality of having established contact with the dead.

Famous parapsychologists

Rais Amrohvi
Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi
Hans Bender
Susan Blackmore
William Crookes
Max Dessoir
Gustave Geley
John Hasted - author and creator of the shyness effect, unwatched children could bend eating utensils with their minds
Charles Honorton
Robert G. Jahn
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
Doug Davis-Wrote the theory of deja-vue explanation

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:

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, famous for being able to see with his eyes covered by coins, tape, dough, gauze, etc.
Edgar Cayce — claimed to be a psychic healer in the first half of the 20th century and to have lived a past life in Atlantis
Miss Cleo
Mina Crandon "Margery" — last noted physical medium in the USA and widely thought to be fraudulent
Gerard Croiset
Natasha Demkina — The girl with x-ray eyes
Jeane Dixon — made wide and vague predictions, claimed she had a Divine gift.
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 Over" 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
Daniel Dunglas Home — most famous physical medium of the 19th century
Jim Jones — claimed to perform healings. He was the leader of the Peoples 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
Stefan Ossowiecki (Ossovietski?) — read things in sealed envelopes
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
Miroslaw Magola may adhere objects to his body

Critics of parapsychology

Derren_Brown (Has a detailed TV show ,debunking people's beliefs.)
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 and Master Conjuror, his works are frequently overlooked.
Martin Gardner-Noted rationalist, puzzlist, science writer, and Master Conjuror
Ray Hyman- Conjuror and noted research psychologist
James Randi-Master Conjuror and author
Ehrich Weiss (Harry Houdini)-Master Conjuror and author
Penn and Teller

Psychic investigations

Remote viewing (includes Stargate project)
Global Consciousness Project

References

^ Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Belief in the Paranormal or Pseudoscience, National Science Foundation, 2000.
Parapsychology, by Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi, Al-Kitaab Publication, 1985.
The Conscious Universe, by Dean Radin, Harper Collins, 1997, ISBN 0062515020.
Parapsychology: A Concise History, by John Beloff, St. Martin's Press, 1993, ISBN 0312096119.
Parapsychology: The Controversial Science, by Richard S. Broughton , Ballantine Books, 1991, ISBN 0345356381.
Our Sixth Sense, by Charles Richet, Rider & Co., 1937, First English Edition
ESP,Seers & Psychics : What the Occult Really Is , by Milbourne Christopher,Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1970, ISBN 0690268157
The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research, by Ray Hyman, Prometheus Books, 1989, ISBN 0879755040.
Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Parapsychology, ed. Antony Flew, Prometheus Books, 1987, ISBN 0-87975-385-4
Sixty Years of Psychical Research : Houdini and I Among the Spirits, by Joseph Rinn, Truth Seeker, 1950
Roots of Consciousness, Jeffrey Mishlove, 2 editions

@@ Line 326: / Line 326: @@
 [[Category:Parapsychologists]]
 [[Category:Paranormal phenomena]]
-[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
 [[ca:Parapsicologia]]