Introduction
Author and parapsychologist, Ruth Reinsel argues that parapsychology is a genuine, empirical field of study. By using the SEARCH formula, and identifying cognitive bias and a mark of pseudoscience it is shown that this argument fails the justify its conclusion. Later, it is argued that, if one accepts the existence of psychic ability then it is most likely only one ability than manifests in a variety of manners rather than many distinct abilities. This argument is shown to be comparatively strong as it avoids a conjunction fallacy and better fits the criteria for a good explanation. Parapsychology – A new Science?
Reinsel argues, over the duration of the essay, that parapsychology is “solidly empirical”, in effect representing…show more content… The first indication of this is within the use of rhetoric within the euphemistic description of parapsychological researchers as “reputable philosophers and scientists” indicates a bias towards parapsychology’s legitimacy. When this is combined with a meta-study (McCrone, J, 2004) that shows affirmative results only seem to occur when the researcher believes in psychic powers (‘psi’) suggests that Reinsel committed a grab-bag approach to evidence (Marks of Pseudoscience, Radner & Radner), diminishing the strength of the overall argument. By presumably ignoring evidence that doesn’t support her conclusion, Reinsel’s statistical claims are inaccurate as there would be many instances where no abnormal results occur. This increases an alternative hypothesis; that these apparently parapsychological results are just statistical outliers since, with more trials, the probability of outliers increases. Although Reinsel’s argument avoids an additional mark of pseudoscience as it appears to be open to revising and improving the methodological rigor in reaction to criticism doesn’t help show the validity of parapsychology, rather, it allows for the data to provide valid evidence. The claims related to mental states would also strengthen the argument as it would…show more content… If one supposes that there exists some form of psi, then the SEARCH formula can be used to show that an argument for a unified psi is stronger (or more accurately, ‘less wrong’) than an alternate hypothesis consisting of distinct varieties of psi. Note that the previous section of this essay shows there is stronger evidence for statistical chance than any type of psi. The text evidences this hypothesis by claiming that the experiments lack the ability to distinguish between different types of psi. An example of this is the inability to distinguish between using precognition to predict the roll of a die and using psychokinetic ability to move the die in such a way it lands on the number ‘predicted’. Under the presumption of the existence of psychic ability this strengthens the author’s hypothesis as it has an identified mechanism of ‘psi’ whereas the discrete theory would require more – currently undisclosed mechanisms. The second set of evidences is that psychic ability of all kinds seems to appear within the certain individuals and all types of psi are affected similarly by conditions such as mental state and psychoactive drugs. This evidence reduces the comparative probability of the alternative hypothesis being better. To
