The Koestler Doctrine

Last year the Guardian published what I thought was a rather inoffensive article by Caroline Watt on the benefits of teaching parapsychology. Dr. Watt, a researcher and lecturer at Edinburgh's Koestler Institute, agreed that most mainstream scientists are not persuaded that there exists replicable evidence of psi phenomena. But she pointed out that polls show around half of the UK population holding paranormal beliefs, and of these half have had a paranormal experience. So it makes sense to study it.

It's also a great way to teach scientific methodology, she added, for instance how to identify possible sources of bias or artefact or contamination in a research study and the use of tools such as meta-analysis for examining controversial claims - ideal for stimulating critical thinking.

This got the gremlins out in force. A few samples:

It is outrageous that they cannot learn this from conventional science such as physics, chemistry or biology. Parapsychology is pretty much wholly a pseudoscience other than the 'debunkers' and has no place in the science classroom.

There is nothing within this topic to teach; no accredited results; no credible theories; no un-debunked researchers. What *exactly* are you "teaching"?

And this:

OK, I won't call you "ghostbusters"...will dimwits do

When I was at school we dissected animals and studied their entrails to learn how the digestive system works. If only we'd realised we could tell the future from them too

It was the usual ignorant caterwauling, but I did connect with this remark by 'cynicalsteve':

She's trying to have her cake and eat it....if she (Watt) thinks there's something in parapsychology, she should say what exactly; if she thinks it's nonsense, then she should say that. But she says both (not neither) on her site; which is naughty. So she's nothing more than a professor of hypocrisy - not parapsychology - "teaching" something in which she doesn't really believe...

Of course it wasn't Watt's pragmatic fence-sitting that enraged most critics so much as the mere notion that paranormal belief and experience are worth studying - a phenomenon in itself deeply worthy of examination (their rage, I mean).  But not knowing anything about her background I was surprised when some friends mentioned to me recently that they actually considered her something of a sceptic, a-la-Wiseman. That seemed rather odd, considering her position at Edinburgh. So when she gave a talk this week I was interested to go along and find out where she stands. 

Watt, a lively and pleasant Scot, started by updating us on the situation at the Koestler Institute, which if some of the rumours going around were to be believed was practically at the point of collapse, having dipped rather freely into the capital of Koestler's bequest. That situation seems to have stabilised, but there isn't enough cash to pay for a professorship. So Bob Morris, who died a few years ago, has not been replaced, and instead there are just two lecturers, of whom Watt is one.

Watt went on to talk about work with Wiseman on paranormal belief, a subject which surely has been done to death. But she also described a couple of experimental approaches. A current one involves healing at a distance, and the results are expected later this year. The other involved an attempt to influence subjects engaged in meditation, by pairing them with a person, who from another room tries to help them reduce the number of distractions they experience.

The aim here was actually to test the 'experimenter effect'. It was found that there was no effect when the experimenter tried to influence the participants, either by expressing enthusiasm and certainty in a positive outcome, or by the opposite. But there was a significant difference between experiments led by believers and disbelievers in psi. (Bizarrely, the effect was not to reduce the number of distractions in the believers' experiments but to increase the number of distractions in those carried out by disbelievers.)

This struck me as a useful addition to the psi database, although as so often with these things it still lacks the replication that would make it stand out. And Watt's own position? Pretty much as stated in the Guardian, as it turns out: people obviously have these beliefs and experiences, which it makes sense to study, but as to psi itself, there is still not enough to totally convince other scientists.

This 'Koestler doctrine', I guess, will be the standard line in British universtities where Koestler graduates are teaching and researching parapsychology (eg. Northampton and Liverpool Hope). And why not? It's true as far as it goes, it's reasonable, and it genuflects enough to 'serious science' to keep the critics off their backs. A genuine interest in researching psi does not necessarily come with a willingness to endure controversy and notoriety.

But if parapsychology as a discipline is content with this I doubt whether it will win many converts. One could equally claim that there is abundant evidence of psi, both in documented surveys and case studies, for which sceptics have advanced little in the way of serious alternatives, and in a body of experimental work which consistently finds evidence of psi, both in individual interactions between subject and agent, and also in statistical anomalies which, again, are unexplained by knowledgable critics. If parapsychologists were not in such a precarious situation they would say this.

It's true that the subject helps students think about scientific methodology, but the critics are right, that's a smokescreen - it's not what this is really about.  If parapsychologists think psi exists, somewhere along the line they need to have the courage of their convictions and say so unambiguously, as indeed some researchers like Sheldrake and Radin do. They then need to explain exactly what the challenges are, and keep hammering the message home until at least some of the less emotional sceptics get the point.

It's on the teaching side that Edinburgh really may make an impact. Watt has just designed an online course in parapsychology, which is apparently attracting a good deal of interest (we were apparently the first to see it). This sort of thing really could make a difference, and I'll come back to it as soon as I've had a chance to check it out. 

Comments

[Mark]

I can't say I agree that most of the public believing in something necessarily says that it makes sense to study it. I have a pretty low opinion of the general public, especially the public over here in the United States. Then again, a good deal of people claiming to have actually experienced a paranormal event might be good enough to warrant serious study. Actually, I believe all "crazy" ideas should be studied, but not necessarily given as much priority as other ideas, depending on a number of factors.

[joki]

Not only C Watt seems to favour the open minded, but sceptic position. Peter Lamont is also a senior research fellow (and a stage magician) at the Koestler institute and has published papers with R Wiseman and also published in 2005 a book about D.D. Home ("The First pssychic"); he concludes that he could not find any kind of fraudlent actions, but due to Home s suspicious social behaviour he thinks that Home was also a fraudulent medium. He also claims in the last chapter of the book to be open minded, but at the end it depends always on the personal belief. Stephen Braude has critisized these conclusions and also the ones of Trevor Hall (in detail somewhere else) in his new book, which I recommend here all to read. So in general I support Robert s view here that we need high intellectual people like Braude in order to show that there is indeed a kind evidence for PSI, but also to show how difficult it could be to differentiate from alternative conclusions like dissociative disorders,...in every case.

[Carol Noble]

Too many people who dismiss the possibility of PSI and other paranormal events do so because they have never had an experience themselves. They are also rather gullible in that they believe what they have been told by officialdom even when others give information that contradicts that.

I have begun to realise that the brain works in a way that is different to that put forward by mainstream science. Those who study the brain also give statistical evidence of the parts of the brain dealing with specific aspects of the body and senses as a definite circumstance rather than a majority situation. They ignore the facts that have been gained from those who have had to modify their thought processes because they have less brain matter than most of us; there are also those who have different "wiring" whereby they have a combined sense with certain stimuli such as seeing colours when hearing certain sounds. These are but two examples of many.

We are all different, and we need to recognise this. I have had experiences that I know are different to that of other people, and also to me in other situations. I cannot explain them fully, although I am trying to understand by learning more how my brain works, and others. For years I have been saying there is a "time delay" in the way the brain works, and recently some scientists admitted there can be up to a 10 second time delay between stimulus coming into the body/brain subconsciously and the conscious mind acknowledgeing it and processing the fact.

The reason that PSI is difficult to replicate scientifically is because there are many different situations occuring every moment of the day. What a person has eaten, the level of seratonin, the sort of weather, the presence of invisible energy waves, the health of the person at that moment, the amount of emotion a person has, are but a few factors. Trying to sort out all of these factors, and more, can make it extremely difficult to say for certain what makes some people capable of perceiving paranormal situations.

We also tend to have preconceived ideas which can influence how our brain processes any information, and we are also different genetically so predisposing us to certain possibilities.

Science, as it is at present, will never be able to replicate many of the paranormal activities that occur daily to lots of people throughout the world. Just because science can't come up with answers doesn't mean there isn't any.

How many scientists are also followers of a religion? Religious belief is based on unconfirmed faith, yet this is an acceptable way of seeing the world around us, and acting within it. What is wrong with some people being able to perceive and interact withthe world in a different/paranormal way?

[Ivan Lay]

Field studies (spontaneous phenomena) vs. laboratory experiments (controlling variables)...
On the "field studies" side: The belief in parapsychology is maintained by verbal/written reports in its favor, PLUS some personal experiences. [One could comment on, validity, frequency, etc., etc, of any conceivable subcomponent of the above. But the core of the above statement stands.]
On laboratory studies: methodology and *focus* are paramount. Thus (all things being equal), "weak" subjects will yield weak results.
Thus, consider:
magnetic family, chinese http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mADlT9FALOs
malaysian http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p42JnyypCo0&NR=1
So, rather than to use a convenient sample of college students to study, one could actually buy an airplane ticket for a mini expedition.
The malaysian Liew Thow Lin (along with his children and grandchildren) can be examined...
But (just like in astronomy, or cellular biology), INSTRUMENTAL observations and measurements are of importance.
If/as human experiences have brain correlates, the fMRI and the 256 channel research grade EEG can ("sort of") pinpoint the neuroanatomic correlates of "paranormal" energy generation/reception.
And England is replete with departments of cognitive psychology and neuroscience, with the above equipment.
Parapsychology could become a "real" science, were efforts made to make it so.
But the number of people involved has to be above a "critical minimum" number.
(The chinese video shows Professor Si-Chen Lee, the president of the Taiwan National University. As a lone researcher, his results stand in a social vacuum.)

si chen lee [click on "Papers Download"]
http://sclee.ee.ntu.edu.tw/english/mind/mind.htm

[Filip VD]

Robert said If parapsychologists think psi exists, somewhere along the line they need to have the courage of their convictions and say so unambiguously, as indeed some researchers like Sheldrake and Radin do. They then need to explain exactly what the challenges are, and keep hammering the message home until at least some of the less emotional sceptics get the point.

I think they all should more explicitly state this. How will they gain any respect by undervalueing their results. They need more loud and clear voices. With the available evidence like the autoganzefeld, the pk studies etc there is a huge case which would be unambigiously accepted in other scientific disciplines and now is rejected because of the name it carries "psi, telepathy" and some of the metaphysical beliefs it appears to challenge for some. There is no way that more people get interested if not more people speak out and make the case clear so the terrain and the influence of the media skeptics gets balanced. This is growing in my view although I'm to young to know how it was a decade or 2 ago.

greets,
Filip