A Response to Psychic Research

James Alcock of The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry responds to Cornell professor?Darryl Bern‘s controversial recent research on psi effects. “However, this is hardly the first time that there has been media excitement about new ‘scientific’ evidence of the paranormal,” writes Alcock. “Over the past 80-odd years, this drama has played out a number of times, and each time, parapsychologists ultimately failed to persuade the scientific world that their phenomena actually exist.” Alcock reviews past attempts at proving psychic phenomenon and Bern’s experiments. His conclusion: “Early excitement is often misleading, and as Ray Hyman has pointed out, it often takes up to 10 years before the shortcomings of a new approach in parapsychological research become evident.” [%comments]


Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Sophie Boyce says:

    This, just like with any other scientific research, comes with its critics and fans. the shape and form psychic intuition is constantly changing and there are websites such as http://www.thepsychicweek.com take a new approach to psychic websites, not looking individuals who are seeking guidance but rather looking at news stories. These sites bring a new, less skeptical approach to this industry and let us know that it is forever changing

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. James says:

    Re #8: “Because it if existed, we as a species would have done something with it.”

    Humm… I guess by the same logic, there’s no such thing as giant magnetoresistance, ’cause up to the mid-90s, humans hadn’t done anything with it. But nowadays, you can buy a 2 Terabyte hard drive for $90 plus shipping.

    But cheap sarcasm aside, humans (or at least you neurotypical types) apparently DO use forms of it all the time, and expect the rest of us to use it too; to know what you’re thinking or feeling even though you don’t tell us – which can make life rather frustrating at times.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. David kiefer says:

    I have a question, Im able to feel the biofield around people, and if there sick, inside there body, I can feel the energy they give off. I think I have help some people in my pass, I don’t go out all that much because of it. My hands pick up this, and I can feel it, when Im standing near them, I don’t really see the aura around people I feel it. Im trying to find out about this what do they call it, of what I read they seem to think its part of sex, I don’t see it that way, I don’t call it the god thing, I think we were ment to do all these things, but somewhere down the line, we have been given a bowl of bs by people who never wanted us to step in this area. I hope you can help.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Jeffrey Eldred says:

    Critics of James Alcock should address the points he made. Alcock cite sources and goes step by step through the paper detailing what is procedurally problematic about it.

    And what does Alcock get for his effort? People say he must be closed-minded. I assure you, it takes quite a deal of open-minded to sift through all this parapsychology bunk.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Bronco. says:

    To the person #11 who says they feel things with their hands; it is probably your imagination. T sounds like the type of claim made by those who feel the presense of God or who feel they just know God is there. Sometimes people convince themselves of all sorts of things.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. Max says:

    Thanks for restoring some sanity by citing a skeptical response. Another good response that’s been cited is by Wagenmakers et al.

    David kiefer,

    You could apply for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge, but first watch this test of an aura reader who made a fool of himself.

    I guessed better than he did just by timing how long it took people to come out from behind the screen.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. John T. says:

    Jeffrey Eldred, please check out the Dean Radin response to Alcock. The link is provided in the first response. He destroys Alcock IMO. I would encourage anyone who agrees with Alcock to read the Radin response. It’s a pity, though not surprising, that Radin is not given a forum here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Kevin says:

    I read Bem’s response to Alcock, and did some math myself. He claims that he did 100 trials, each using 36 images; on some, 18 images counted toward the results, while on others 12 images were included. That gives about 1500 binomial samples, for which the standard dev sqrt(np(1-p)) ~= 19, for p = 0.5 random chance. His claim of 53.1% success in those 1500 trials is +47 successes above chance, which is 2.5 standard devs from the mean — fairly improbable.

    However, this fails to be impressive in light of Radin’s idea of research (quoted by Alcock at the end of his critique): take a raw set of data, massage it, analyze it, etc. and then report on whatever seems most unusual about it. The odds of finding a specific outcome are very different than the odds of finding *anything* unusual about your data. The odds of finding something statistically significant in a data set approach 1, as the number of “meta-analyses” of that data increase.

    In this case, we are probably seeing a hypothesis that follows one aspect of the data, rather than data that confirmed a hypothesis. As such, I would not expect it to be reproducible.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0