Science Confronts the Paranormal

Best of Skeptical Inquirer

by Kendrick Frazier (Editor)

A Gallop poll surveyed 506 American teenagers, aged 13 to 18 and discovered the following: - 69% believe in angels - 59% believe in ESP - 55% believe in astrology - 28% believe in clairvoyance - 24% believe in Bigfoot - 22% believe in witchcraft - 20% believe in ghosts - 18% believe in the Loch Ness Monster Carl Sagan has said that the wonders of real science far surpass the supposed and imagined mysteries of fringe science. Yet, as statistics show, the paranormal is still an endless source of fascination for people around the world. This collection of critical essays and investigative reports examines virtually every area of fringe science and the paranormal from a refreshingly scientific and clear-minded viewpoint. The authors are noted scientists, philosophers, psychologists, and writers. All bring to the task a determination to sift sense from nonsense and fact from fiction in an area notorious for misinformation, misperception, self-delusion, and wishful thinking. They do so in a way that highlights the differences between real science and pseudoscience. They've made special efforts first to find the actual facts behind numerous claims that have popular appeal, and then to explain and communicate what scientific investigation and reasoning reveal about them. Subjects treated to incisive and entertaining examination include astrology, ESP, psychic detectives, psychic predictions, parapsychology, remote-viewing, UFOs, creationism, the Shroud of Turin, coincidences, cult archaeology, palmistry and fringe medicine. There are also explorations of the implications of paranormal beliefs for science education.

Genres: Nonfiction

367 pages, ebook

First published February 1, 1986

Reviews

[Phillip Fuller · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I was young I had every volume of Time-Life Mysteries of the Unknown series and watched Leonard Nimoy host In Search Of on TV. What was presented as fact was nothing but falsehoods easily dispelled by good science as this book does with the Loch Ness monster and psychic predictions. What the editors of the Skeptical Inquirer are trying to do is educate the public to not be taken in by pseudoscience and be better at discerning lies presented as truth. Science requires that there be rigorous tests to establish veracity of a claim using closely controlled experiments. The section on Iridology or the use of looking at the iris of the eye show how sometimes pseudoscience can be dangerous because using an invalid diagnosis system can lead to a patient getting a wrong prognosis. The other stuff like Astrology and Palmistry are harmless if they are only taken as entertainment only but should not be taken seriously. Overall it was a fascinating read on how people can be fooled by so called psychics who use magic tricks to fool even scientists.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE SECOND COLLECTION OF ARTICLES FROM THE ‘SKEPTICAL INQUIRER’

Editor Kendrick Frazier (1942-2022) was a board member of the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), and a longtime editor of their magazine, ‘Skeptical Inquirer.’

He wrote in the Introduction to this 1986 book, “Why examine the paranormal?... Even cursory consideration shows that the subjects are replete with exaggeration, deceit, fraud, misperception, self-delusion, and other prominent foibles of the human race. Shouldn’t they perhaps just be ignored and automatically discounted?... I will suggest at least four reasons responsible scholars, and their students, should devote some attention to examining the paranormal…1. The public is interested. Indeed, large proportions of the public believe in paranormal powers… 2. Public education. If an informed and rational citizenry is indeed important to a democracy… then scientists have an obligation to help the public understand the difference between sense and nonsense… 3. Intellectual honesty. Scientists and scholars are supposed to be engaged in discovering the truth, wherever it may be… 4. Opportunity to teach real science… The natural fascination people have with the paranormal... can be converted into a curious audience willing to hear about the science involved.” (Pg. ix-xiii)

Paul Kurtz states in the opening essay, “the history of science if full of radical departures from established principles. Thus we must keep an open mind about unsuspected possibilities to be discovered. However, one should make a distinction between the open mind and the open sink. The former used certain critical standards of inquiry and employs rigorous methodological criteria that enable one to separate the genuine from the patently specious, and yet to give a fair hearing to the serious heretic within the domain of science… the exoheretic may simply be a crank… Simple neutrality in the face of this may be a form of self-deception.” (Pg. 8)

James E. Alcock suggests, “CSICOP and the ‘Skeptical Inquirer’… [have] served to create a sense of community among many critics of the paranormal. By providing an excellent outlet for critical commentary in … the ‘Skeptical Inquirer,’ and through its efforts to bring attention to the weakness of claims made by proponents of parapsychology and UFOlogy and the generally unfair bias of the media, it has helped bring about an atmosphere that has encouraged significant numbers of people to contribute constructively and critically to the debate about claims of the paranormal.” (Pg. 21)

Steven Hoffmaster reports on 19th/20th century scientist Oliver Joseph Lodge (1851-1940): “Lodge’s interest in psychical research began in 1883… Perhaps as his ability to contribute to physics decreased his enhanced interest in the paranormal helped to fill a void created by a changing interpretation of the natural world… In his 1909 book, ‘The Survival of Man’… Lodge stressed that a scientific and objective study of psychical phenomena was necessary… What objectivity Lodge did possess regarding the paranormal all but disappeared after his son’s [Raymond’s] death [in 1915]… Soon after the death of Raymond, Sir Oliver was contacted by a medium… who arranged for a number of séances… When reading Lodge’s account of the séances… it become quite apparent that he believed wholeheartedly in its validity and existence. His naiveté and his trusting nature were his undoing.” (Pg. 80-82)

Ray Hyman points out, “The problem of public availability of the data is especially critical in the case of remote viewing… Without access to the original transcripts, the reader gets to read only those one or two exceptional transcripts selected by the authors. And, for the most part, only excerpts from the chosen transcripts are supplied.” (Pg. 98)

James Randi explains, “I have long believed that the major difference between the skeptic and the parapsychologist is one of expectation. The former does not believe that validation of paranormal claims is imminent; the latter depends upon that even for justification. Also, the skeptic will invoke parsimony… where the parapsychologist eschews it. Personally, I find it much more reasonable, when objects fly about the room in the vicinity of an unhappy 14-year-old, to suspect poor reporting and observation rather than a repeal of the basic laws of physics.” (Pg. 146)

Martin Gardner argues, “There are two reasons why traps to detect fraud are more essential in PK research than anywhere else. First, the claims are far more extraordinary and therefore require much stronger evidence. Second, the field has always been soaked with fraud. In the days when eminent physicists were convinced of the reality of floating tables and glowing ectoplasm, an enormous service to science was performed by Houdini and others who were willing and capable of setting traps for the mediums.” (Pg. 167)

Paul Kurtz and Andrew Fraknoi state, “What does science have to say about astrology? First, modern astronomy has negated its key principle: that the earth is the center of our solar system… Second, we know that a person’s personality and physical characteristics are determined by his or her genetic endowment inherited from both parents and by later environmental influences… Third, there have been exhaustive tests of astrological claims to see if they have any validity… Careful inspection of astrological predictions in a typical newspaper column shows that the statements are so general and vague that they can apply to anyone.” (Pg. 220)

Bruce Martin says of UFOlogist J. Allen Hynek, “It is discouraging to see someone who has practiced as a scientist… take up a subject so much in the public mind as UFOs and apply what seem like no standards whatever. Hynek appears to be but another sad case in which the mania for the occult has overwhelmed critical judgment and submerged the practice of meticulous checking and rechecking of evidence that every reliable scientist observes.” (Pg. 254)

Joe Nickell says of the Nazca drawings in Peru, “It is frequently asserted that the Nazca drawings are recognizable only from the air. That is not quite true, certainly not of the smaller figures… which [are] only 80 feet long. Neither is it true of some drawings… found on hill slopes…. Moreover, even the large drawings can be appreciated to some extent from the ground… With our condor, we were able to see whole portions… even before our fly-over. We felt that an observer would be able to recognize it as a bird.” (Pg. 291)

Isaac Asimov reveals, “Frankly, I find … a cyclic Universe more emotionally satisfying … than a one-shot beginning and ending. My intuition, if you like, tells me that astronomers will find that missing matter and will decide that the Universe is cyclic and that there is no beginning after all and no ending, only endless repetitions, endless bouncings, endless pulsations.” (Pg. 301)

Robert Scadewald critiques creationist ‘Flood Geology’: “The argument is that creatures of the sea and seashore would be buried first, then … land animals like amphibians and reptiles, then … mammals, and finally … man. This explanation … fails entirely for plant fossils. We can test the hypothesis by asking about angiosperms (flowering plants)… We’d expect [from the creationist theory] to find the flowering plants overwhelmed with the amphibians. Yet angiosperms appear suddenly in the early Cretaceous, along with mammals.” (Pg. 310)

This book will be of great interest to those seeking a skeptical perspective on the paranormal.

[Grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

I expected a book about debunking paranormal encounter stories, but this was not the case at all. This was explaining why these things (such as ghosts, aliens, or physics) were fake. I was disappointed when I realized they only confronted a few real ghost stories.