Skip to main content

Psi vision goggles

In the first chapter of my recent book Extra Sensory I wrote this:
Some scientists are scornful, claiming that it’s all over for paranormal abilities. They point out that traditionally many things that were once considered supernatural we now know to be either imaginary or the product of perfectly normal, natural phenomena. The supernatural aspects were first dismissed by science, and that dismissal has been gradually accepted by the general public. So, for instance, lightning was once seen as an unearthly force, quite possibly propelled by the wrath of the gods. Although there are technical aspects of the way that lightning is produced that we still don’t understand, there are few people indeed who don’t accept that lightning is a purely physical phenomenon, an electrical effect on a tremendous scale. It may be quite unlike the kind of thing that comes out of the socket at home, but it’s electricity nonetheless.
If you look back at the remarkable summaries of thirteenth century  proto-science produced by natural philosopher and friar Roger Bacon in books like the Opus Majus, there are plenty of travelers’ tales that we would now dismiss out of hand and that we wouldn’t consider to be serious descriptions of the real world. You will find descriptions of tribes of wild Amazon female warriors and mysterious devices for seeing at a distance that go beyond even the capabilities of a telescope. There are many marvelous, if unlikely examples that were thought to be part of nature. For example, in his Letter Concerning the Marvelous Power of Art and of Nature and Concerning the Nullity of Magic, Bacon tells us:
as for instance that the Basilisk kills by sight alone, that the wolf makes a man hoarse if he sees him first, and that the hyena does not permit a dog to bark if he comes within its shadow ... Aristotle tells in the book De vegetabilibus that female palm trees mature ripe fruit through the odour of the males; and mares in certain countries are fertilized by the smell of horses ...
These were all serious beliefs back then, as close to science as anything came. But these beliefs have joined leprechauns and fairies in the ranks of ideas that were not just an incorrect observation of nature but totally fictitious. Just as these misinterpretations and fictions have disappeared from everyday life it is argued by some skeptics who can’t even be bothered to examine the evidence that telepathy, remote viewing, telekinesis and the like have also reached a stage where they should no longer be considered anything more than a fantasy or a historical misunderstanding.
I would suggest that we have not reached that stage while there are so many people who still think that there is something to be investigated, and while a host of experiments have thrown up evidence that at least needs careful examination. We ought to take a look at that evidence with fresh eyes, biased neither by enthusiasm for the topic nor by scientific blindness that refuses to even look at the evidence because we “know” there is nothing to see.
 It has been interesting that the reviews I've had so far fall into three camps, which sadly reflect the fact that quite a lot of people aren't prepared to look with fresh eyes, but merely fall back on their old prejudices.

The first camp is the purely sceptical science camp. They have shown their position by simply ignoring the book. Of course any book can fail to garner reviews, but on past evidence of my books, this is unlikely to be the case entirely. So along with Richard Dawkins, this group is probably saying 'I am not interested in the evidence.' Then there's a second camp that gets it. Thank you to them. Finally, and most vocally in terms of reviews, are those who, as I put it above, are 'biassed by enthusiasm for the topic'. They accuse me of being a secret sceptic or say I unfairly make parapsychology sound in a bad way. This suggests, of course, there is something wrong with being sceptic. But scepticism, if applied properly is neutral. What they mean by 'sceptic' is someone who starts with the assumption there are no psi phenomena, which anyone actually reading the book would see is not the approach I took.

As for parapsychology being in a bad way, I think it is. We aren't seeing the big pieces of work like Rhine's and PEAR any more. And ever since Rhine, the field has been dogged by a combination of being unwilling to apply proper controls and by an obsession with looking for small statistical variations, rather than actual direct evidence. I'd suggest it does need an overhaul.

I can't say those who accuse me of being a secret sceptic upset me - but I do think it's funny that they can't see how thick the distorting goggles they themselves wear are.


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope