Talk:Controversy in parapsychology/new/example

While parapsychology is a recognized discipline, the scientific reality of parapsychological phenomena and the validity of scientific parapsychological research within it remain a subject of dispute and criticism.

In response to this criticism, the scientific standards in parapsychology have been continuously tightened, and parapsychologists say that current experiments such as the autoganzfeld meet the highest scientific standards. Critics, however, say that replications are still needed before the existence of psi can be considered a scientific fact.

General context
Many skeptics of parapsychology hold that the entire body of evidence to date is of poor quality and not properly controlled; in their view, the entire field of parapsychology has produced no conclusive results whatsoever. They often cite instances of fraud, flawed or potentially flawed studies, a psychological need for mysticism, and cognitive bias as ways to explain parapsychological results.

Some proponents of parapsychology argue that those who hold these views have not had sufficient contact with the published literature of the field published in its peer-reviewed journals. Instead, many skeptics seem to have relied on the analyses made by members of the skeptical community. (Radin, 1997: 205-227)

However, even "insiders" in the parapsychological community worry about naive belief in the paranormal. They have tried to distance parapsychology from the paranormal in popular culture.

Reliability of evidence
A common criticism of parapsychology is the accusation that the field relies primarily on anecdotal evidence, which may be unreliable both in observation and analysis. The majority of the scientific community does not accept anecdotal evidence alone as proof of a theory. This is because anecdotes may have natural, non-anomalous explanations such as random coincidence, fraud, imagination, or auto-suggestion.

Much of the evidence for psi phenomena today is based on laboratory experiments and not anecdotal evidence. Although anecdotal evidence can be used for specific cases such as in law and many other fields, these are not necessarily used as evidence for the general existence of psi.

Controlled conditions
Experiments in parapsychology have been criticized for not being sufficiently controlled to rule out normal explanations for the results.

Flaws in parapsychological research are addressed in the same way it is addressed in any other field of science, by repeating experiments at multiple independent laboratories; publishing methods and results of studies in order to receive critical feedback and design better protocols.

Replication
While parapsychological experiments with positive results have been replicated at independent laboratories, skeptics say that these replications were poorly done, and need further confirmation before they are accepted. (Radin 1997:91-109) (Radin 2006: 278)

Statistical significance
The positive results in psi experiments are very close to statistical insignificance. Meta-analyses of psi experiments have shown positive results far beyond that required for acceptance in any other science. (Radin 1997: 219) However, reliance on meta-analyses is seen as troublesome within parapsychology, because analysis is done after the results are know. "

Presumption of psi
Parapsychology is said to suffer from what is called The psi assumption. Just because there exist currently inexplicable positive results of apparently sound parapsychological experiments does not prove the existence of psi, but only an unexplained anomaly.

Gambling
Psychics could make a lot of money predicting or even controlling (via PK) events, but none of them seem to do so. Parapsychologists say that the effects of psi are too tiny or unreliable to give psychics a major advantage. (Radin 1997: 175) (see Radin 1997: 175-189).

Conflict with known science
Psi phenomena are often considered by critics to violate "the known laws of physics". Parapsychologists say that psi does not violate the laws of physics, but merely requires that our understanding of physics be expanded. (see Radin 1997: 221-222)

Interdisciplinary field
Critics dispute that parapsychology is a truly interdisciplinary field, because other fields do not seem to need parapsychology to explain their results. Parapsychologists feel that isolation from other branches of science does not occur because parapsychology has nothing to offer other fields, but because of bias, saying that parapsychology can contribute in many ways. One area where parapsychological research into the possible effects of human consciousness on matter might benefit physicists is in the area of quantum theory. The interaction of consciousness with matter is sometimes acknowledged by physicists, yet parapsychological results are not considered relevant. Parapsychologists point to such contradictions as evidence that their isolation from other fields of science may be due to bias.

Pseudoscience
Parapsychologists make illegitimate use of well established scientific theories. Many ideas in physics have been invoked to explain or justify the existence of putative psi phenomena: Relativity theory and the concept of simultaneity; the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, time reversal, tachyon particles and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - the latter having been used to explain negative results ('experimenter' and 'sheep-goat)') effects). As Alcock has noted:

However, Alcock and others have maintained that:

Parapsychologists do not claim to understand psi. Psi is the name for an unknown phenomenon or unknown phenomena, which have given rise throughout history to many extraordinary human experiences, and which have been demonstrated in the laboratory. However, quantum mechanics and other physical theories have many similarities with parapsychological observations of psi. These similarities have not been shown to explain psi, predict psi, or even to be relevant to psi. However, the topical similarities are suggestive, and have lead parapsychologists and some quantum theorists to speculate that they may eventually lead to an expanded understanding of physics which embraces psi.

Some parapsychogists have stated that modern physics should not be used to explain psi, and that difficult issues, like the EPR paradox, do not necessarily require a psi explanation:

Scientists specializing in distinct disciplines within mathematics and physics work collaboratively with deeply complicated concepts that often require bold, intuitive and imaginative speculation, yet in spite of this, the community generally rejects hypotheses proposed to account for psi. However, according to Professor Brian Josephson,