With very little fanfare (as far as I’ve seen), Routledge has republished three books in the relatively recent history of psychical research. All are available in quite expensive hardback versions, and Broad’s book is also mercifully available as a less expensive (but hardly bargain-priced) paperback. Moreover, all three can be purchased as e-books, but don’t expect bargains there either. As of this writing, the best Kindle price I saw for Smythies’ and Carington’s book is $92, although Broad’s can be had (...) for about $35. (shrink)

In his Introduction, the Editor of The Survival Hypothesis, manages to present us in the space of twelve pages—no mean feat—with some key definitions, a “necessarily brief and incomplete history of mediumship,” an introduction to the ‘source of psi’ problem with respect to mediumship, an outline of the structure and contents of the present volume, and his concluding wish that survival-related topics, such as mediumship will receive more attention than hitherto within mainstream parapsychology. Part I of the book is entitled (...) Explanation and Belief, and opens with two closely linked essays by Stephen E. Braude on The Possibility of Mediumship: Philosophical Considerations, and by Michael Sudduth on Is Postmortem Survival the Best Explanation of the Data of Mediumship? (shrink)

It's probably no secret to readers of this Journal that working in areas of frontier science can very easily test one's character and bring out the best and worst of human behavior. I mention this now because a few months ago the journal Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences published a significant new issue (Volume 48, Part A). It contains a lengthy special section on psychical research, guest-edited by Andreas Sommer. I'll probably comment again about (...) this journal issue in later Editorials, but this time I want to focus on the first paper to catch my attention. Not surprisingly, I suppose, it was written by a philosopher, Ian James Kidd from Durham University, and it boasted the intriguing title, "Was Sir William Crookes epistemically virtuous?" (Kidd 2014). (shrink)

This paper chronicles my introduction to and subsequent investigation of the Felix Experimental Group (FEG) and its exhibitions of classical physical mediumship. It’s been nearly a century since investigators have had the opportunity to carefully study standard spiritistic phenomena, including the extruding of ectoplasm, and the FEG is the only current physical mediumistic circle permitting any serious controls. The paper details a progressively stringent, personally supervised series of séances, culminating in some well-controlled experiments with video documentation in a secure and (...) private location belonging to one of the investigators. Regrettably, recent indications of fraud (explored also by Michael Nahm in this issue) have tarnished the case as a whole. However, it remains unclear how extensive the fraud has been. Accordingly, this paper evaluates the arguments both for and against the paranormality of the phenomena displayed under the author’s supervision. (shrink)

I suppose most of us have wondered at one time or another whether a person’s apparently defining character traits are fixed, or whether people are capable of meaningful and deep change. Perhaps the issue arises most frequently in the context of intimate personal relationships, but it seems also to be a recurring topic of practical or professional concern to those studying scientific anomalies. I subscribe to several email listserves, one of which is a forum for psi researchers, and this topic (...) routinely forms the background for discussion. It usually happens in the following way. First, some intransigent skeptic (or, perhaps more accurately, passionate psi-denier) publishes something outrageous (if not libelous) about a serious and diligent member of the parapsychological research community. It might be a severe blast of ad hominem attacks lacking even the appearance of empirical support. Or, it might be an ostensibly evidence-supported critique which only the well-informed would know to be inexcusably one-sided if not blatantly dishonest. The former happens frequently to Rupert Sheldrake. The latter is a specialty of career skeptics who posture as careful researchers themselves but who sedulously avoid discussing evidence that’s most difficult to explain away.1 When a new such attack surfaces, listserve members usually respond with a furious flurry of postings about how best to respond and whether to respond at all. A related manifestation of skeptical intransigence is the manner in which Wikipedia biographies of parapsychologists, LENR researchers, and others have been hijacked by a collection of Wikipedia insiders who have rewritten the biographies, replaced accurate information with falsehoods, and thwarted all attempts to correct the misrepresentations. Here, too, victims of this treatment wonder how—or whether there’s any point in even trying—to counter the damage. (shrink)

When I first dipped my toe tentatively into the frigid waters of psi research, back in the late 1970s, one of the big issues of the time was whether the ability to replicate experiments distinguishes—or as philosophers often say, demarcates—science from non-science (or pseudoscience). This was a big issue because all too often parapsychological skeptics glibly used that demarcation criterion to bludgeon psi researchers and dismiss them as unscientific. Fortunately, in those days there was some very sensible writing on the (...) subject, particularly from Harry Collins, to whom I was especially indebted when I tackled the topic of replicability myself for the first time.1 The skeptical position on the issue of repeatability struck me as so lame that I even naively expected the debate to be settled rather quickly. However, because psi researchers often enter the field having little acquaintance with the work that preceded them, and because many critics of that research likewise fail to master the relevant issues, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that the debate over the nature and importance of replicability still rages. Indeed, little (if any) attention is given to the reasonable points that should have put that issue to rest long ago. Instead, researchers and commentators focus relentlessly—and as usual, inconclusively—on the results of meta-analyses. Some of those meta-analyses are indeed worthy of attention,2 but (I would say) only in light of the overlooked considerations I discuss below. So I’d like to review some problems with the still-widely–held view that the ability to replicate experiments is what demarcates science from non-science or pseudoscience. As I see it, that position is both shallow and confused, and the problems with it don’t even have the virtue of being subtle. First, the skeptical reliance on the demarcation criterion rests on a naïve conception of the actual importance within science of experimental repeatability. Indeed, experimental repeatability plays little if any role in disciplines (including some physical sciences) whose scientific credentials are not in dispute. Second, it seriously misconstrues how the appeal to replicability works even in those physical sciences where it plays a real role. Third, the received view rests on philosophical confusions regarding the nature of similarity—in particular, the flawed idea that there can be formal, context-independent, criteria for the similarity of two things. And fourth, it rests on confusions over the nature of human abilities generally, and in particular, the appropriate methodologies for studying them. One could also argue that a fifth problem for this received view is that psi research can in fact point to replicable results. But that last issue must be reserved for another occasion. (shrink)