Skepticism is a fundamental aspect of science — without it, science would not be able to function properly. The skepticism is not, however, unlimited. It is not a question of doubting every single premise and proposition equally. Proper skepticism is contextual, selective, and constructive. Proper skepticism focuses on ideas which seem to have the least likelihood of being credible.
Skeptics of parapsychological claims can divide their efforts into two related areas. The first involves analytic and logical objections to parapsychology in principle — for example, regarding the fact that parapsychology contradicts well-known and well-established principles of science or regarding the complete lack of any theoretical framework which would allow these events to occur as described.
The second involves critiquing the specific cases and events offered by believers as examples of parapsychological events. Does any of this alleged data represent genuinely paranormal events? Does any of this alleged data point to something other than the operation of normal, known natural processes? Is this alleged psychic really doing something remarkable or inexplicable? Indeed, is there even anything to explain in the first place?
Throughout the history of spiritualism and parapsychological research, a common attitude among investigators has been to discount the likelihood of fraud and to engage in as little overt skepticism as possible. If this were scientific, it would make parapsychology unique among all the sciences. Expecting belief without good evidence and without engaging in much skepticism is more characteristic of religion.
Recent research has been more willing to take the possibility of fraud into account — which also, ironically, makes parapsychology unique among sciences. How often do review committees in biology and chemistry have to specifically look for fraud in the experiments performed by people? How often do they ask for more experiments in order to discount the possibility of fraud?
Being “open-minded” is usually a matter of withholding belief until sufficient evidence warrants belief while also not being prejudiced against belief; yet in parapsychology, something different seems to be meant. An ironically good and honest expression of what is meant was written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (an avid believer in spiritualism) when he heard about the composition of a team of investigators who were going to research alleged spiritual powers for Scientific American:
- “What I wanted was five good clear-headed men who would stick to it without any prejudice at all — like the Dialectical Society of London, who unanimously endorsed the phenomena.”
Apparently, within the realm of research upon allegedly psychic phenomena, any possible evidence is to be used, regardless of its actual quality. Because the use of such evidence fails the basic standards required by scientists in more established fields, it suggests a lack of professional conduct and professional standards.
Paul Kurtz, in his essay “Spiritualists, Mediums, and Psychics: Some Evidence of Fraud,” suggests the following analogy to understand how poor the evidence and reasoning can be in the world of parapsychology:
- “...let us imagine for the moment that money is missing from a bank vault, and we discover that a bank teller has concealed the money in his briefcase. Let us say that the teller pleads innocence, admits that it was an absentminded mistake, and expresses profound remorse. Let us say that, since the teller has worked for the bank for many years, the bank president decides to give him the benefit of the doubt.”
- “A month later, a considerable sum of money is again missing. This time you discover that the teller was the only one to have entered the vault. He is thoroughly searched and the money is found hidden in this lunch box. When confronted, the teller says that he has special psychokinetic powers, that money sometimes mysteriously disappears when he is around, and that he cannot always control this power.”
- “Should we assume that the teller is honest and take him at his word? Let us stretch the case beyond the limits of forbearance and say that he is given still another chance, and that a third time money is missing but that, when the teller is searched, it cannot be found. Are we entitled to then conclude that the cause was “supernormal”? Or has the teller this time really outsmarted us? ...To maintain that the cause here is “supernormal” would be a violation of all of the principles of common sense and logic.”
- “Yet this kind of reasoning seems to be acceptable in the world of psychical research.”
Such judgments may seem harsh, but parapsychological researchers would like both the public and scientists to consider their work a genuine scientific endeavor. Therefore, not only must the work be judged by scientific standards, but the researchers themselves must be judged according to the professional standards current within science.
