The question of what human consciousness “is,” how it “works,” and what it “does” is currently being approached by myriad fields of study, each with their own particular goals and research techniques. But despite the undeniably complex nature of this enigmatic phenomenon, the prevailing scientific and institutional paradigm seems to imply that only quantitative, experimentally focused approaches are a worthy means of illuminating “truth” about human consciousness. -/- In this paper, I begin by borrowing Popper’s metaphor of “clock systems” versus (...) “cloud systems,” applying each to quantitative and qualitative inquiry respectively. I make the case that, as Popper urged when articulating his ideas about physical determinism, the field of consciousness research must re-consider the possibility that rejecting the “cloud” or qualitative aspects of consciousness will lead to a stunted, incomplete picture of the phenomenon. Taking examples from my own work as an anthropologist and from the work of my colleagues within the field, I offer examples of and reflections on what qualitative research has to offer all of us who wish to gain insight into human consciousness; in particular, its nature, function, and potential. In response to the one-sidedness within the field, I urge researchers of all types to consider its “double nature” as a positive quality, and offer the reminder that no matter what differences in our particular goals and research styles, our meta-mission remains the same: to illuminate the great mystery that lies in the center of our personhood. (shrink)

In this paper, I describe various examples of blatant attempts to censor parapsychology research and those doing it. They include raising false accusations, suppressing papers and data, and ostracizing scientists interested in the topic. The intensity of fear and vituperation caused by parapsychology research is disproportionate even to the possibility that the psi hypothesis could be completely wrong, so I speculate on psychological reasons that may give rise to it. There are very few circumstances in which censorship might be appropriate, (...) and the actions by parapsychology censors put them at odds not only with the history of science but with the history of modern liberal societies. An appendix includes an editorial censored by the then-editors of the Journal of Human Neuroscience. (shrink)

Will Storr, journalist and novelist, has written a book about people who vociferously disregard evidence that does not fit comfortably with their dogmas. Yes, many of the usual suspects are here: the holocaust denier, the creationist who ridicules evolutionary theory, and the past Thatcher science advisor who pooh-poohs global warming. But Storr shows that many debunkers and critics of non­mainstream (in our culture) beliefs are equally contemptuous of the scientific method and, in some cases such as that of the "Amazing (...) Randi," mythologize themselves and lie in order to ridicule and frustrate their opponents. Lying is a strong word, but a refreshing virtue of Storr is that he arrives to his interviews very well-prepared and is fearless in his probes (p. 368, see also McLuhan 2010): S: (You) sometimes lie. Get carried away. R: Oh, I agree. No question of that. I don't know whether the lies are conscious lies all the time... S: So you've never been wrong about anything significant? R: In regard to the Skeptical movement and my work... No. Nothing occurs to me at the moment. In a note about his method at the end of the book (p. 392), Storr declares that his "knowledge is broad but shallow," yet he is an astute and vigorous synthesizer of many sources including the media and academic publications. The Heretics is at it most incisive when it juxtaposes replies from opposite camps, revealing just how similar they actually are despite content divergences. A telling example is from his chapter on homeopathy. (shrink)