Pseudoscience and the Paranormal

by Terence Hines

Television, the movies, and computer games fill the minds of their viewers with a daily staple of fantasy, from tales of UFO landings, haunted houses, and communication with the dead to claims of miraculous cures by gifted healers or breakthrough treatments by means of fringe medicine. The paranormal is so ubiquitous in one form of entertainment or another that many people easily lose sight of the distinction between the real and the imaginary, or they never learn to make the distinction in the first place. In this thorough review of pseudoscience and the paranormal in contemporary life, psychologist Terence Hines teaches readers how to carefully evaluate all such claims in terms of scientific evidence.
Hines devotes separate chapters to psychics; life after death; parapsychology; astrology; UFOs; ancient astronauts, cosmic collisions, and the Bermuda Triangle; faith healing; and more. New to this second edition are extended sections on psychoanalysis and pseudopsychologies, especially recovered memory therapy, satanic ritual abuse, facilitated communication, and other questionable psychotherapies. There are also new chapters on alternative medicine, which is now marketed in our drug stores, and on environmental pseudoscience, with special emphasis on the evidence that certain technologies like cell phones or environmental agents like asbestos cause cancer.
Finally, Hines discusses the psychological causes for belief in the paranormal despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This valuable, highly interesting, and completely accessible analysis critiques the whole range of current paranormal claims.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Skepticism, Pseudoscience, Psychology, Paranormal

516 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 1988

Reviews

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my third time reading this book. I first read it in 1988, next in 2010 and finally again this year. For me, it ranks as one of the most influential books I’ve ever read.

There is no greater danger than those who embrace conspiracy inspired pseudo-science. Trump has an intuitive grasp on spewing nonsense and framing his world with non-falsifiable hypothesizes while creating alternative facts which aren’t facts in as much as facts are good evidence that support a hypothesis.

I cringe when a neighbor says that vaccines don’t work against Covid. The gold standard in science is a double-blind experiment with sufficient sample sizes and the early vaccines showed that the vaccines worked with high efficacy and caused no significant illnesses beyond chance with minor exceptions. The playbook for MAGA nuts is to warn against government conspiracies and not being able to trust ‘fake press’ (Hitler called it “Jew Press,” and Trump euphemistically refer to “Sorors controlled press”).

This book warns the reader against how it’s not possible to prove the negative, and Trump’s conspiracies of today are no different than the garbage that was spouted on to us in the 1980s. As demonstrated in this book, Uri Gellar was a fraud in 1980s just as he is today, and I’d like to note that the New York Times about a year ago wrote a glowing piece about him and only mentioned James Randi in passing in their article while this book gave Randi the credit he deserved.

Science never can prove the negative, ‘reindeer can’t fly,’ for example, there’s no data I can give someone who believes reindeer can fly to show that they are wrong. I can drop them off the roof one at a time, and the person can just say that the reindeer didn’t want to fly, or they are forbidden to fly when they are observed and so on. (This example comes from James Randi and was not in this book).

MAGA throws its nonsense at you such as ‘vaccines don’t work’ or ‘climate change is not real’, and so on and they hide their claims enshrined in a non-refutable hypothesis, that is a hypothesis such that no data could refute their assertion. MIAs are still in Vietnam, there is nothing I can give them to show them that statement is not true.

The three legs holding the MAGA stool are Evangelical Christians, Fascists (authoritarians) and Racists and all three require conspiracies wrapped in pseudo-science (non-refutable hypothesizes). The value of science includes simplicity (Occam’s Razor), predictability, analytical, belonging within the Web-of-knowledge (William Van Orman Quine’s structure), and the story we tell about the data. Trump and MAGA only have the story as their value and start with the conclusion and they let that shape their reality (vaccines work as far as we know) while they tell their story void of facts and rely on the impossibility of refuting negative hypothesizes (prove to me that there is no dragon in my garage (Sagan), or there is no teapot in space between the moon and earth (Russell)).

The big themes presented in this book are priceless. The specific refutation of some of the pseudo-science and para-normal is tedious and not as necessary today because the internet has it covered today, but the methodology presented for how to think about reality are as necessary today as when this book first came out.

[Tamara · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can't even begin to describe how disappointing this book was. I expected something that was balanced and while I didn't expect it to uphold the paranormal, I did expect the author to admit that they did not know everything. That is the opposite of what I got in this book though. From the way that the author wrote this book it was obvious that the author not only thought that they knew everything, but that anyone who didn't agree with them 110% was stupid. The author not only didn't bother to keep his opinions balanced but he also used derogatory terms for the people who did believe in these things. While I am not a scientist, I did always think that scientists were the people who were capable of looking only at the science and not lowering themselves to bashing on the people who didn't agree with them. I do not recommend this book at all, and in my opinion this author should be ashamed of themselves.

[Elizabeth | _its_liz_reading · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must-read for everyone. Fave sections: astrology, homeopathy, and psychoanalysis/jungian pseudo-psychology/humanistic pseudo-psychology.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is THE book that yanked me out of my woo-woo haze and into the wonders of reality. I initially picked it up from the library believing it to be true believer pron but I was blind-sided by reason. I've never been the same, in a good way!

[Tom Schulte · Rating 4 out of 5]

Basically a textbook on debunking, I mostly like the bibliography here fitting into the approach of considering fantastic notions in the context of relevant, published studies. Some of these overviews of studies include interesting facts I do not believe I have heard before, such as the unreliability of "blips" on 20th Century radar not capable of aircraft identification:

But what about the radar report of two unidentified targets? Amusingly, it turns out that the targets were two of the aircraft that reported the UFOs in the first place. In 1969 airport radar did not automatically identify planes that appeared on the screen. The operator had to place a written note next to the screen identifying each "blip." Aircraft that were passing over rather than landing at a particular airport were not honored with such a written identification. None of the three aircraft that reported the UFOs was landing at St. Louis. Thus, when the first aircraft reported seeing the UFOs, the tower at St. Louis correctly reported that there were two "unidentified" targets in the area. There were the two other aircraft that moments later also reported the UFOs. Modern airport radars now automatically identify all aircraft in their area by picking up a special signal from each aircraft's transponder. Klass (1984- 85) has noted that, as radars have become more sophisticated at correctly identifying aircraft and filtering out sources of error, the number of radar UFO reports has dropped almost to zero. Of course, if UFOs were real, one would expect the increased sophistication and sensitivity of modern radar to increase the number of UFOs seen on radar.

I had hoped for some redeeming value found in the consideration of psychology, like the lie detector chapter which suggests a potentially valuable tool is too often misused in setup and lack of double-blind approach:

Lykken (1981) has developed what he terms the "Guilty Knowledge Test," which evaluates an individual's physiological reaction to information that only the criminal could have. In Lykken's (1981) hypothetical example, a double murder has been committed. Police officers photograph the bodies in the actual positions where they were found. Additional photographs are taken of each body after it has been moved about the house to different, but equally plausible locations. An innocent suspect would respond with equal arousal to pictures of the bodies whether they were in the actual or the "posed" positions, assuming that the innocent suspect had not had the opportunity to see the bodies in their correct positions. The murderer, however, Lykken (1981) argued, would respond with greater arousal to the picture that only he or she knew to be correct. Laboratory studies of the Guilty Knowledge Test...

As one who in my 20s was in awe of the writings of Carlos Castaneda (thought no longer), I was disappointed to learn of how blatant the fraud was and how well known:

What is most interesting is the response that has greeted the revelation that Castaneda's works are fictional. First, there has been no real attempt to revoke his Ph.D., based as it is on fraudulent "research." Secondly, as de Mille (1978, 1980) documents, the response among many anthropologists and others who share the Don Juan type of philosophical outlook has been neutral. In other words, it doesn't matter if the works are fictional because the underlying philosophy is, in some vague sense, true. An excellent example of this approach is Shelburne's (1987) article titled "Carlos Castaneda: If It Didn't Happen, What Does It Matter?" Shelburne argues that "the issue of whether it [Castaneda's experience] literally happened or not makes no fundamental difference to the truth of the account" (p. 217). Such excuses are little more than intellectual used-car salesmanship.

If anything, this is valuable to me as a modern example of the evolution of a revealed religion and how it could grown and persist, despite being undercut in its very foundations. Even the Shroud of Turin is shown to have been seen as fake in the 1300s as recounted here...

Speaking of such religious mumbo-jumbo, there is a great quote take in the section considering the fantastic claims around Lourdes:

The French writer Anatole France made a telling and pungent comment upon visiting Lourdes in the late nineteenth century and seeing all the abandoned crutches and canes: "What, what, no wooden legs???"

[GANNAM STYLE!! Biochemista Mr Pockel El villano malvado · Rating 1 out of 5]

Otro libro que fue sobrevalorado en blog, en muchos capítulos patina dando su opinión. Sólo se debe usar como referencia histórica, para términos actuales muchos de sus argumentos están refutados.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent introduction to pseudoscience and the paranormal from a scientific perspective. While it might be a bit dry in places, the chapters are small and easily digestible. The author cites his sources throughout and in many sections there are recommendations for further reading if the subject interests you. There were one or two things that seemed a bit dated but overall the book is still highly relevant. This will remain on my shelf alongside Flim-Flam! and The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, among others.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a superb reference for those just getting acquainted with the topic of debunking pseudoscience and quackery. The scope of Hines' book covers a very wide range of subjects, but doesn't go into very much detail for any of them. This makes it easy to read individual sections in one sitting, and serves as a springboard for further investigation into topics of interest using the extensive bibliography. I recommend the reader also refer to James Randi's Flim-Flam! which expounds on some of the cases like the Cottingley Fairies hoax or the fraudulent claims of Uri Geller.

[Leonard Pierce · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hines' book is a very effective and comprehensive overview of pseudoscience, but compared to some of the other giants of the skeptical field (Park, Randi, Gardner, and the like), it's a bit dry.

[Bjorn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. Encyclopedia of irrational beliefs. Well written and well explained.

[Karthi Mohan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Throughout the whole book the author basically argues against all forms of paranormal phenomena, in the usual materialist fashion.