It’s not often that I get to feel like a spokesperson for empirical conservatism. But that happened recently when I was invited to give a talk at the 50th Annual Conference on Anomalous Phenomena sponsored by the International Fortean Organization (INFO). The occasion provided several healthy illustrations about what I suppose we can call boggle relativity. The conference was stimulating, challenging, and professionally run, and I was happy to meet quite a few very smart and pleasant attendees—among them, the SSE’s (...) treasurer John Reed, MD. In fact, I very much look forward to attending future INFO conferences. (shrink)

Several of my recent Editorials have dealt with terminological/conceptual errors and confusions that have been all too prevalent among psi researchers. In this Editorial, I want to consider a related issue often raised about parapsychological concepts and explanation. Probably we’ve all heard the complaint that parapsychology’s core concepts have only been defined negatively, with respect to our present level of ignorance—for example, taking “telepathy” to be “the causal influence of one mind on another independently of the known senses.” Perhaps some (...) of you have even expressed that complaint yourselves. Of course, the assumption underlying those complaints is that this definitional strategy is a problem. However, it seems like a perfectly reasonable procedure to me, and I can easily accept the possibility that we might eventually learn enough about phenomena so defined that we can later construct better, detailed, and more informative analytical definitions. But at least as far as psi research is concerned, I consider it presumptuous—at our present (and considerable) level of ignorance—to proceed any other way. We hardly have the barest hint, based on all the available data, as to what psi is doing in the world (i.e., both inside and outside the lab). In fact, formal, experimental evidence has been particularly unilluminating. It has barely succeeded, if it’s succeeded at all, in convincing parapsychological fence-sitters that there are any genuine paranormal phenomena to study (I’ve explored some reasons for this in Braude, 1997). And it certainly hasn’t shed light on how pervasive, extensive, and refined psi effects might be, or whether effects of radically different magnitudes would be the result of substantially different processes. At best, typical quantitative research examines only straitjacketed expressions of phenomena that non-laboratory evidence suggests occur more impressively (if not flamboyantly) “in the wild.” So it strikes me as appropriately modest and circumspect to define “PK” (for example) as “the effect of an organism on a region r of the physical world without any known sort of physical interaction between the organism's body and r.” (For additional specific parapsychological definitions, see Braude, 2002). (shrink)

Parapsychologists are often-and understandably-concerned about finding reliable and stable repositories for the donation of manuscripts, published books and articles, investigator's notes and diaries, and other valuable research materials. (No doubt this challenge also confronts other areas of frontier science, but I'm personally familiar only with its manifestation in parapsychology.) University and public libraries can be fickle, initially accepting donations of these materials but disposing of them later. And parapsychological organizations often struggle to maintain a tenuous hold on their own existence-and, (...) of course, the existence of their libraries and archives. For example, the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in London at one time housed an extensive and rich collection in the Society's home at 1 Adam & Eve Mews (one of the world's great addresses). But when financial pressures forced the SPR to relocate to a much smaller venue elsewhere in Kensington, the organization had no choice but to divide its collection and deposit most of the rarer items in the Cambridge University Library (where, I'm told, some of those items occasionally "dematerialize"). Similarly, the Rhine Research Center (RRC) in Durham, North Carolina, has been in a precarious financial position for decades. When the organization moved to newly built headquarters several years ago, their valuable archives were at least moved to a home that was not a fire or flood hazard (unlike the basement of the former RRC building across the street from Duke University). But if the RRC folds, either from financial pressure or a paucity of support personnel, what becomes of its collections? Currently, the Parapsychology Foundation in New York City is in serious financial trouble, and its enormous and well-organized library could easily be out of a home in the near future. It's no wonder, then, that I-along with other chronologically challenged psi researchers-worry about what to do with our own private collections of books, notes, and other archival materials. Can any relevant and useful organization be counted on to survive, and can any person be trusted to respect and preserve the donation, or (following retirement or death) to pass the collection on to another trustworthy person? I faced this dilemma about ten years ago when I was asked to sort through and preserve the letters, papers, and books of my close friend psychiatrist Jule Eisenbud. Eisenbud is probably best-remembered for his investigation of the psychic photography of Ted Serios, an alcoholic Chicago bellhop who appeared to produce anomalous images on "instant" Polaroid film (for the full story, see Eisenbud, 1967, Eisenbud, 1989, and for a summary and update see Braude, 2007). The Serios case, in my view, is very strong and very important, and Jule's materials are an exceptionally valuable resource. Jule's library was enormous; he had written a hefty collection of books and articles; he had many boxes of videos and other materials pertaining to the Serios case; and he had also preserved nearly all of his written correspondence (both personal and professional) since the 1930s, including many exchanges with leading figures in parapsychology and mainstream science.... (shrink)

I’ve often noticed how debates within the SSE community sometimes parallel debates in the political arena, perhaps especially with respect to the passion they elicit and the intolerance and condescension sometimes lavished on members of the “opposition.” Occasionally, of course, the debates in the SSE are nearly indistinguishable from those in the political arena—say, over the evidence for human-caused climate change. But what I find most striking is how the passion, intolerance, etc.—perhaps most often displayed by those defending whatever the (...) “received” view happens to be—betrays either a surprising ignorance or else a seemingly convenient lapse of memory, one that probably wouldn’t appear in less emotionally charged contexts. What impassioned partisans tend to ignore or forget concerns (a) the tentative nature of both scientific pronouncements and knowledge claims generally (including matters ostensibly much more secure than those under debate), as well as (b) the extensive network of assumptions on which every knowledge claim rests. So I’d like to offer what I hope will be a perspective-enhancer, concerning how even our allegedly most secure and fundamental pieces of a priori knowledge are themselves open to reasonable debate. A widespread, but naïve, view of logic is that no rational person could doubt its elementary laws. But that bit of popular “wisdom” is demonstrably false. And if that’s the case, then so much the worse for the degree of certitude we can expect in more controversial arenas. Let me illustrate with a few examples.1. (shrink)

Please see downladed paper for abstract (my browser doesn't support your 'paste' function and I'm using a microsoft surface which doesn't allw alternative paste routes as far as I know).

In October 2015 I supervised a series of séances in Hanau, Germany with Felix Circle physical medium Kai Mügge. The purpose was to try to obtain better documentation of Kai’s table levitations than my team was able to achieve in Austria in 2013 (Braude, 2014). Although that goal was not met over the course of four séances, we nevertheless witnessed some interesting phenomena that are difficult to explain away normally given the control conditions imposed at the time. These include object (...) movements beyond the reach of the sitters, a very strange “exploding” sound from the séance table, and some extended levitations in which the table seemed to sway or swim in mid-air. But what may be most interesting about this series of séances is the way the phenomena reflect the complex, and tortured, underlying psychodynamics of the occasion. Indeed, what readers need to know about the FEG phenomena has as much to do with personalities involved as with the phenomena themselves. As a result, this report focuses as much on the background to the investigation as on the investigation itself. (shrink)

Is it fortunate, fortuitous, or foreboding that this book emerges from the shadows of the publishing world even as the embers of the Daryl Bem “feeling the future” controversy are still aglow? Whatever the case may be, and whatever your view of the data at the center of it, many thanks are due Daryl Bem for opening up the tough and much-needed conversation about the nature of science, methodology, statistics, replication, meta-analysis, and, yes, prejudice, via his now well-known Journal of (...) Personality and Social Psychology article (Bem 2011). Moreover, I am reminded of P. T. Barnum’s wily wisdom, “I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name right!” During the writing of this review I had a chance encounter with a young man in his third year of Ph.D. studies in psychology at a large (distant) state university. When I mentioned my own special interest in parapsychology, he asked, “What’s that?” But as soon as I started to tell him “... telepathy, clairvoyance,...,” he blurted out, “Oh, the Bem stuff!” Thank you, Daryl Bem! And I for one am looking forward to the rounds still to come (Bem, Tressoldi, Rabeyron, & Duggan 2015). Thanks also to editors Cardeña, Palmer, and Marcusson-Clavertz for their service in putting together this arguably controversial volume, Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century. For those who are brave and confident enough to go to the tough places in science and psychology, with an open mind, this book is just your ticket. All of the issues raised by the Bem-o-versy are here, and much, much, more. (shrink)

Many people are persuaded of the existence of psychic phenomena by their own spontaneous experiences of apparent psi. However, without some measure of how often psi-suggestive experiences can be expected to occur purely by chance, it is difficult to determine the epistemic import of these cases. While methods have been developed to find statistical baselines for some spontaneous cases—specifically, ones in which cases of interest can be identified before any verification of their supposedly psychic content has been obtained—many spontaneous cases (...) of purported psi are not identified as such until after some degree of spontaneous verification occurs: for instance, when a person notices a striking correspondence between their mental state and another event to which that state appears to have no physical causal connection. This paper develops a method applicable to these cases—the time-slice method for calculating baseline correspondence potential—and thus enables individuals to determine the epistemic import of their own spontaneous psi experiences. (shrink)

A review was conducted of Crookes' lever experiments on the psychic force proposed by Daniel D. Home. The levers were 36"-long boards with a fulcrum at 1.5" and 4.5" from the left end in the first and second experiments, respectively, and had a spring-balance suspension at the right end. In the first experiment, Crookes did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the experimental results could not be explained using Newtonian mechanics. In the second experiment, direct contact between Home's hand (...) and the lever was prevented by a water vessel that had been set exactly over the fulcrum. If the gravity center of the vessel is assumed to have been off-center by even 5 mm to the right of the fulcrum, a force greater than 114 lbf would have been required to be exerted on the lever when Home's fingertips were dipped in the water to produce the observed increase in spring force (0.71 lbf); this is physically impossible. The analyses show that neither changes in the buoyant force on the dipped fingers nor water sloshing or external tremors can explain the experimental results. Additionally, some well-known paranormal phenomena are listed for a possible future extension of this study. (shrink)

The psychical research literature has many examples of séance room materialization phenomena. This article consists of a reprint of, and commentary about, Eric J. Dingwall’s paper “The Plasma Theory”, published in the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research in 1921. Dingwall discussed some of the previously published ideas on the topic, and emphasized those related to mediums Eva C. and Kathleen Goligher. The purpose of the current article is not to provide evidence for the phenomena, but to present (...) relevant contextual information relevant to the article, additional bibliography, and theoretical concepts, some of which are forgotten today. (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)

Probably, most JSE readers already have at least a rough idea of what the term “synchronicity” means. The concept of synchronicity—it hardly deserves its familiar classification as a theory—is usually credited to Carl Jung (Jung 1973), although Jung really didn’t do much actually to clarify the notion. I’ll say something shortly about the problems with Jung’s approach, but what he had in mind—again, very roughly speaking—is this. We’ve all experienced coincidences in our lives: surprising combinations of events that appear to (...) be causally unrelated. Of course, what surprises us about the events isn’t simply that they’re apparently unrelated causally. That’s true of many (if not most) pairs of events at any given time, and in fact the vast majority of events are completely unremarkable when considered in combination. The event-clusters in a coincidence attract our attention first, because something about their combination seems personally noteworthy or strange, and second because we consider that combination to be more or less improbable. In fact, the more improbable we believe the event-clusters to be, the more significant and remarkable the coincidences are likely to seem. (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)

For SSE members fascinated by well-documented accounts of strong macro-PK phenomena, these are very exciting times. Three outstanding volumes have appeared in fairly short order, each of which is a major addition to the literature. The first to appear was Zofia Weaver’s book on the Polish medium Franek Kluski (Weaver 2015), reviewed in JSE 29:3. Shortly thereafter, Erlendur Haraldsson and Loftur Gissurarson published their detailed opus on the Icelandic medium Indridi Indridason (Haraldsson & Gissurarson 2015), reviewed in JSE 29:4. And (...) then most recently, we’ve seen Michael Grosso’s long-awaited examination of the seventeenth-century flying friar, St. Joseph of Copertino, carrying the additional imprimatur of a respected academic press (Grosso 2016). It will be reviewed in the next issue (JSE 30:2). (shrink)

In these editorials I prefer not to revisit issues I’ve covered before, much less recycle previous editorials. But the recent Michigan conference of the SSE has convinced me that the time may have arrived. What provoked me was this. On several occasions I happened to overhear attendees making confidently dismissive remarks about what they took to be the extreme or outlandish views and presentations they’d encountered during the conference. And I was reasonably certain that many of those expressing these opinions (...) did so with little or no justification for the certitude they displayed. With that in mind, I submit again, with a few suitable updates, some remarks I made back in Volume 23. It’s not often that I get to feel like a spokesperson for empirical conservatism. But that happened when I was invited to give a talk at the 50th Annual Conference on Anomalous Phenomena sponsored by the International Fortean Organization (INFO). The occasion provided several healthy illustrations about what I suppose we can call boggle relativity. The conference was stimulating, challenging, and professionally run, and I was happy to meet quite a few very smart and pleasant attendees. (shrink)

This is an essay review of Eusapia Paladino: Materialisations and Intellergetic Phenomena in Physical Mediumship, compiled by Scott Dickerson (No publication place: Runabout, 2016. 286 pp. ISBN-13: 978-1530915859).

Composer and musicologist Nicolas Slonimsky published a fascinating and delightful book entitled Lexicon of Musical Invective: Critical Assaults on Composers Since Beethoven’s Time (Slonimsky 1965). The book is a collection of what Slonimsky called “biased, unfair, ill-tempered, and singularly unprophetic judgments” (p. 3) about famous composers and their works. We find, for example, the Gazette Musicale de Paris on August 1, 1847, saying of Verdi, “there has not yet been an Italian composer more incapable of producing what is commonly called (...) a melody.” And this publication stuck to its guns. On May 22, 1853, it said of Rigoletto that it “lacks melody. This opera has hardly any chance to be kept in the repertoire.” The May 1804 issue of Zeitung für die Elegente Welt proclaimed Beethoven’s Second Symphony is a crass monster, a hideously writhing wounded dragon, that refuses to expire, and though bleeding in the Finale, furiously beats about with its tail erect................ (shrink)

On a few previous occasions I’ve documented my misgivings over certain terminological fads or conventions in parapsychology. In fact, I’ve done so in this Journal (Braude 1998). I’m now writing an entry on macro-PK for a promising new handbook of parapsychology (a long-overdue update to Wolman 1977), and this exercise has reminded me about a concern I expressed many years ago (in Braude 1997), and which I hope is worth mentioning again.

Scholarly studies of physical mediumship typically list D. D. Home and Eusapia Palladino as the most convincingly documented mediums of all time, and most also rate Home’s case as among the most spectacular. Although many consider other cases of physical mediumship to be as dramatic as that of Home (e.g., that of Carlos Mirabelli, and Indridi Indridason), and while other less dramatic cases are often ranked as highly significant (e.g., Kathleen Goligher, Rudi Schneider, Eva C.), the prevailing view is that, (...) despite their different virtues, these cases lie within the shadows of Home and Palladino. My own survey of physical mediumship (Braude 1997) represents this received opinion, an opinion which the book currently under review has forced me to reconsider. (shrink)

Periodicals of various sorts have long recognized the need to address certain topics on a regular basis. That’s why computer magazines routinely offer articles such as “Windows Tips and Tricks,” and “How to Protect Your Data.” Similarly, photography magazines return again and again to articles explaining how to get the most out of wide-angle lenses, how to shoot portraits in natural light, or how to photograph dramatic landscapes. It seems to me that JSE editorials might also need to recycle certain (...) topics from time to time, in part because readership changes, and in part because researchers in areas of frontier science can have conveniently short memories (like everyone else), perhaps especially when it comes to matters that are intellectually or professionally challenging or uncomfortable. The continuing debate over Daryl Bem’s recent precognition experiments (see Bem 2011, and the Editorial in JSE 25:1) and the similar controversy still dogging work on LENR or “cold fusion” suggests that perhaps it’s time to review certain salient facts about the nature of experimental replication in science. What follows is not new. Harry Collins has done outstanding work on this topic (Collins 1992), and I also addressed the issue at length (Braude 2002). For more recent commentary, see also Stefan Schmidt (2009). Apparently, however, what’s both obvious and commonsensical is very easy to overlook. (shrink)

The Journal of Scientific Exploration is devoted to the open-minded examination of scientific anomalies and other topics on the scientific frontier. Its articles and reviews, written by authorities in their respective fields, cover both data and theory in areas of science that are too often ignored or treated superficially by other scientific publications. This issue of the Journal features papers on a variety of subjects. The lead article is a sophisticated analysis of whether there are stable mean values, and relationships (...) between them, in quantitative parapsychological experiments. The next paper is a study of ten Tibetan Buddhist monks, in order to evaluate the hypothesis that meditation enhances performance in a precognition task. The third paper examines an oft-cited meta-analysis of PK studies purporting to show that positive results are attributable to publication bias. The author claims that this analysis is itself undermined by a large number of serious errors. The fourth paper investigates GPS network ionospheric total electron content (TEC) anomalies associated with Taiwan's Chi-Chi earthquake of September 21, 1999. The author considers whether the technique employed in this study can be used to identify earthquake-related TEC anomalies earlier than those typically observed. The fifth paper examines an autobiographical essay written by the Italian medium Eusapia Palladino. The author considers the historical context in which the essay was written, and explores discrepancies between Eusapia's account and statements of other authors who wrote about her. The final paper discusses the mental state of mediums and examines the claim that mediumistic experiences are symptoms of mental disorders. This issue of the JSE is then filled out, as usual, with a large selection of substantive book reviews. (shrink)

During a recent review of some issues concerning the reliability of eyewitness testimony in parapsychology, I was reminded of some fascinating episodes that I believe will interest many JSE readers. These episodes concern a familiar criticism of non-laboratory parapsychological data held, not only by parapsychological skeptics and those only casually familiar with the field, but also by many veteran psi researchers. Challenges to the reliability of eyewitness accounts typically focus on cases of physical mediumship, poltergeists, and apparitions, in which (we’re (...) told) observers ordinarily base their reports on phenomena from darkened séance rooms, or under other poor psychological and physical conditions of observation (e.g., periods of distress or distraction, or objects moving too quickly to be observed and described reliably). Moreover, these are conditions in which observers are particularly liable to misperceive in accordance with their own biases or predispositions in favor of the paranormal. So (we’re told), eyewitness accounts in these cases should be treated with great caution at the very least, because they’re too liable to be contaminated by observer-bias in favor of the paranormal. (shrink)