Free Resources	On-Line

In times past, there have been all kinds of crazy ideas--that bumps on the head reveal character traits, that bloodletting is a cure-all, that each sperm cell contains a miniature person inside. When faced with such claims--or with claims of mind-reading or out-of-body travel or mind-over-matter--how can we separate crazy ideas from those that sound crazy but are true? At the heart of science we find a simple answer: Test them to see if they work. If they do, so much the worse for our skepticism. If they don't, so much the worse for the ideas.

This scientific attitude appears in the agreement of believers and skeptics that what parapsychology needs to give it credibility is a reproducible phenomenon and a theory to explain it. Could the Layton and Turnbull clairvoyance experiment (in which students beat chance in guessing numbers in sealed envelopes) provide such a reproducible phenomenon? The skeptical editor of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, to which Layton and Turnbull submitted their results for publication, wondered. So he and the authors reached an unusual agreement: The researchers would repeat their experiment, and the journal would then publish the results of both, regardless of the new outcome. (As this illustrates, both ESP researchers and skeptics genuinely seek truth.) The result of the second experiment? Layton and Turnbull summarized honestly and succinctly: "No [statistically] significant effects were present."

Knowing how easily people are deceived, and lacking reproducible results, most research psychologists remain skeptical. Indeed, they are dismayed by all the shows, books, and magazines on paranormal topics. But some are newly intrigued by findings recently published by social psychologist Daryl Bem and parapsychologist Charles Honorton (1994) using the "ganzfeld procedure." The procedure places the subject in a reclining chair, plays hissing white noise through headphones, and shines diffuse red light through translucent ping-pong ball halves taped over the eyes. Ostensibly, this reduction of external distractions enables subjects better to hear still small voices within. Building on earlier studies using this procedure, Bem and Honorton isolated a "sender" and "receiver" in separate, shielded chambers and had the sender concentrate on a randomly selected visual image. Over 11 studies, the receivers beat chance by a small but reliable margin (32 percent versus 25 percent chance) when rating which of four images best matched the images they experienced during the session.

Recall that psychology-based critical inquiry asks two questions: What do you mean? And how do you know (what's your evidence)? Parapsychologists say these ganzfeld tests of ESP offer clear answers to both questions. Skeptic Ray Hyman (1994) grants that their methodology surpasses that of previous ESP experiments, but he questions certain procedural details that may have introduced bias. Intrigued, other researchers are now at work replicating these experiments. Will this be the first reliable ESP phenomenon? Or one more dashed hope, one more "phenomenon" that later will be refuted and abandoned? Stay tuned, and remember: The scientific attitude blends curious skepticism with open-minded humility. It demands that extraordinary claims be supported by clear and reliable evidence; given such evidence, it is open to nature's occasional surprises.

As critical thinkers, this can be our attitude, too. We, too, can be skeptical, but without closing ourselves to all startling claims. We can be open to new ideas without being gullible, discerning without being cynical. We can be critical thinkers; yet, knowing that our understanding of nature is incomplete, we can agree with Shakespeare's Hamlet that "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Some things that we assume to be true ‹the reality of another's love, the existence or nonexistence of God, the finality of death or the reality of life after death ‹are beyond science. That is one reason why, after clearing the decks of tested and rejected pseudo mysteries, we can retain a humble sense of wonder regarding life's untestable mysteries.

Why are so many people predisposed to believe that ESP exists? Why do sensational claims so often race ahead of simple facts? In part, such beliefs may stem from understandable misperceptions, misinterpretations, and selective recall. But for some people there also exists an unsatisfied hunger for wonderment, an itch to experience the magical. In Britain and the United States, the founders of parapsychology were mostly people who, having lost their religious faith, were searching for a scientific basis for believing in the meaningfulness of life and the possibility of life after death (Alcock, 1985; Beloff, 1985). In the upheaval since the collapse of autocratic rule in Russia, there has come an "avalanche of the mystical, occult and pseudoscientific" (Kapitza, 1991). "Extrasensorial" healers, astrologers, and seers fascinate the awestruck public.

To feel awe and to gain a deep reverence for life, we need look no further than our own perceptual system and its capacity for organizing formless nerve impulses into colorful sights, vivid sounds, and evocative smells. Within our ordinary perceptual experiences lies much that is truly extraordinary--surely much more than has so far been dreamt of in our psychology. A century of research has revealed many of the secrets of sensation and perception, but for future generations of researchers there remain profound and genuine mysteries to explore.