The Science of Psychism

It is not an oxymoron to put science and psychism in the same phrase or sentence. It is a function of limited information to think they are either unrelated or that science in this case would necessarily be "pseudo" in some way. In order to become more educated in any discipline we need to start with definitions of words:

Science:

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws" from Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1989, Gramercy Books, N.Y.

You can obtain degrees in a variety of sciences, such as political science or library science. You can be involved in fields of study that are called "sciences" like mathematics, theology, botany or psychology.

There are six definitions in the dictionary referenced here, including:

• systematic knowledge of the natural or physical world
• systematic knowledge in general
• knowledge, as of facts or principles
• a particular branch of knowledge
• knowledge gained by systematic study
• skill, proficiency
  

"Science" is in danger of becoming a word limited to the specific definition of those wishing to promote certain agendas, as in the Wikipedia entry (emphasis added) that says:

A broader modern definition of science may include the natural sciences along with the social and behavioral sciences, as the main subdivisions of science, defining it as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.^[2] However, other contemporary definitions still place the natural sciences, which are closely related with the physical world's phenomena, as the only true vehicles of science.

"Other contemporary definitions" might do that, but I believe I'd like the option of using words and not be restricted to what anyone else thinks is the only meaning in this very narrow band of time. I really don't want anyone taking all the references to pugilistic science out of all the writings on that body of knowledge because they think if it's about how to beat the crap out of an opponent most efficiently, it isn't "science."

This fundamentalist thinking about a word does not lead us to open inquiry. Instead, it discards anything not defined as "science" by one element of the culture who relegate the rest of human interest, activity and experience to some intellectually disreputable wastepile of endeavor.

Darwin had no degree in any science. Would have been difficult as such degrees did not exist at the time. He was a naturalist by inclination and interest, he was a minister by formal education, and he was an extraordinary scientist by natural gift and probably family background.

He was extraordinary because of the way in which he conducted his inquiries: without fear of result, without prejudice, without considering the personal consequences. Of course, the personal consequences were something he considered in his original intention not to publish his findings until after his death. Darwin, as a man of his time and culture, cared very much what people thought of him. When he did publish, his vilification by society and rejection by many friends and colleagues, caused him great distress. But they did not stop him from seeking to know and understand the way things worked.

Science can also be defined that simply: systematically seeking to know and understand the way something works. A "scientist" is one engaged in that pursuit.

Interestingly, when someone makes the statement "science proves that...." or "science says..." they are referring to an idea and not any actual person or thing. "Science" never says anything. Some persons who are scientists or journals that publish scientific papers have information. That information is not necessarily agreed-upon by all the scientists, it isn't something that isn't questioned, rejected, or that doesn't change at some point. Human inquiry is a very dynamic process. The way advances in understanding come about in many, many cases, is through finding out something believed was wrong.

"Science says" is actually no more meaningful in terms of uncovering the workings of the Universe than saying Professor Higgins/The Bible/Uncle Fred says. In each case, someone else said something and we believe them. The only exception to this is when we are the scientists doing the work ourselves and publishing our own findings. We are then believing our own experience. Sometimes, when our experiments or observations are repeated by others, they have a different experience, they observe different things.

In the end, we believe what we believe because of the faith we put into who or whatever makes a statement. We judge the reliability of the source.

Scientific Method:

from: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=scientific%20method :
scientific method (a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses)

from:http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~mmoss/GLOSSARY.HTM : Scientific method: the means of science by which phenomena are observed, hypotheses are tested, and conclusions are drawn.

There are a lot of definitions, here's the Google Page that came up when I searched. A lot of the definitions start with "identify a problem" and formulating an hypothesis. Then designing an experiment, analyzing data and coming to a conclusion. All good, but all incomplete. However, in all methods scientific, the first and most critical element of scientific inquiry is: observation.

Evidence:

Evidence has a legal definition and a cultural one. People believe evidence proves something. It does not. It is simply something that, depending on individual interpretation, has meaning relative to an assertion: guilt or innocence in the case of criminal trial. Things admitted into evidence include objects like weapons, or documents, and also include testimony of personal experience and observation.

In scientific inquiry, there are also these same types of evidence, objects, documentation of results or data, and personal experience and observation. Jane Goodall is a fine example of someone who advanced the fund of knowledge considerably through observation and reporting of personal experience over time.

Psychism:

An older and to us a scientifically quaint definition from: http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?psychism:

<philosophy> The doctrine of Quesne, that there is a fluid universally diffused, and equally animating all living beings, the difference in their actions being due to the difference of the individual organizations.

Origin: Cf. F. Psychisme. Source: Websters Dictionary

Today, "psychism" has come to mean the field of study of knowledge directly acquired by a person unaccounted-for by direct observation. A lot of the words used to describe these experiences are from areas we would call supernatural. For instance, clairvoyance, which means "clear seeing" and seems to carry with it connotations evoking thoughts of crystal balls or scrying bowls. In the science of psychism, this phenomenon is usually referred to as remote viewing.

But - but isn't it all pseudo-science?!!!

Pseudo-science is a word like "feminazi." It is smugly designed to denigrate and belittle without ever having to define itself. Pseudo-science does not exist anymore than science does, as an entity. It is simply perjorative and not in any way useful.

In the case of psychic phenomena, as with all things reported to exist or processes reported to occur, we must begin with observation. And in making choices about what we believe, decide what sources are credible.

I'm going to be providing information on the scientific inquiry into psychism (the word is also used to denote a trait that some people report or are observed to have) including identifying the scientists doing the work. Their credibility is not a fact but a judgment, as is the credibility of any scientist in any field.

Below is the abstract of a paper that can be read in it's entirety here. Like most serious University-based studies or experiments, an outside statistician is consulted to assess the results. In this case, the statistician (Professor Utts) was at the time, I believe, the head of the statistics department at the University of California, Davis. I have colored the last paragraph to point up that this is my purpose in presenting the information: we have a powerful tool here, we are slowed up by the continuing insistence of those who have no expertise in the field that the tool simply does not exist. Like the British naturalist who, when presented with a live platypus for the first time simply walked away stating: "There ain't no such animal."

ABSTRACT

Research on psychic functioning, conducted over a two decade period, is examined to determine whether or not the phenomenon has been scientifically established. A secondary question is whether or not it is useful for government purposes. The primary work examined in this report was government sponsored research conducted at Stanford Research Institute, later known as SRI International, and at Science Applications International Corporation, known as SAIC.

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.

The magnitude of psychic functioning exhibited appears to be in the range between what social scientists call a small and medium effect. That means that it is reliable enough to be replicated in properly conducted experiments, with sufficient trials to achieve the long-run statistical results needed for replicability.

A number of other patterns have been found, suggestive of how to conduct more productive experiments and applied psychic functioning. For instance, it doesn't appear that a sender is needed. Precognition, in which the answer is known to no one until a future time, appears to work quite well. Recent experiments suggest that if there is a psychic sense then it works much like our other five senses, by detecting change. Given that physicists are currently grappling with an understanding of time, it may be that a psychic sense exists that scans the future for major change, much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change or our ears allow us to respond to sudden changes in sound.

It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data.

Comment here.