Parapsychology and the Null Hypothesis

In 2003, James E. Alcock submitted a paper named "Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance" to. In his piece Alcock outlines how he believes parapsychologists are unwilling to attribute test results to the null hypothesis and lists reasons why individuals should still remain in doubt about the existence of psi. In order to begin evaluating this paper, perhaps it would be beneficial to first outline what parapsychology and the null hypothesis actually are. The Oxford Dictionary of Psychology states that parapsychology is:

"The study of apparently paranormal psychological phenomena or psi phenomena, especially Extra Sensory Perception and psycho kinesis¹".

It also defines the Null Hypothesis as:

"...the provisional hypothesis that there is no difference or no relationship and that the observed experimental results can therefore be attributed to chance alone."

Alcock begins his paper by outlining the conflict between parapsychology and traditional psychology. He states that modern psychologists tend to ignore the studies and results of parapsychologists as he believes there is inherent problems within the approach. He also states however that parapsychologists are often unwilling to employ a normal explanation instead of a paranormal one. It appears the paper will be a well balanced argument shedding light on both sides of the argument. Alcock suggests that in order for parapsychology to progress, it should maybe embrace the techniques of psychology and the two disciplines should work together in scientific respect.

Alcock points out that in this "special issue" only those who take a scientific approach are included. This could be seen to suggest that if the papers submitted by believers in psi aren't as scientifically guided as straight psychology, then they will be discounted. This seems unfair as although not all research in psi is 100% scientifically verified, it may be un-wise to ignore possible theories and current research. The author proceeds to advise the reader that the special issue should be read as objectively as possible, however, it appears he has already made his mind by not including theories and results by those who do not adhere to the strict scientific regulations outlined by psychology. His ability to remain impartial is again weakened by the fact he states that he has long since been a critic of parapsychological research though he does explain that he would rather admit his stance before the piece properly begins. Alcock also states that his stance is not entirely set in stone, in fact, should solid evidence be provided he would greet it:

"I approached my own reading of the articles in this Special Issue in part with the personal desire to find out if there is any new and compelling evidence that might that might nudge me away from my strong skepticism about the existence of paranormal phenomena".

Those in the pro-parapsychology camp may take this Alcock trying to persuade the reader that he is completely open to becoming a believer though his wording suggests he doubts it greatly.

During the course of the paper, Alcock lists his reason why he believes we should remain skeptical. He begins by discussing the lack of a solid definition in parapsychology and what it is that is actually being studied. Alcock proposes that a central problem many have is that parapsychology lacks a core knowledge base. He suggests that without demonstrations which can be reliably produced and taught - as is the case in other sciences - parapsychology will always be a scientific underdog. This would make sense as anecdotal accounts cannot be taken as solid evidence. Alcock highlights another problem with this field. He argues that he doubts whether parapsychologists could agree on experiments and demonstrations in previous studies which could provide a good case for the existence of psi. It could be seen that if parapsychologists cannot agree, then why should those outside the discipline accept any work in the area.

The second reason Alcock gives for remaining skeptical is the problem with the "Definition of constructs". The author indicates at this point that it is not enough to simply define psi in terms of it is what it is not. As previous arguments have stated, it is often not enough for scientists to accept a phenomena on this basis. This is often viewed as too vague by scientists as they require a solid definition. He asks what psi is and comes to the conclusion that psi is simply a label. He explains that;

"It has no substantive definition that goes beyond saying that all normal explanations have apparently been eliminated".

From this statement, the reader could be led to believe that parapsychologists don't have a definite argument or case. He writes that in order for more people to accept parapsychology, it needs to provide a solid definition. Once they do this, we may be able to identify psi anomalies and know when they are not evident in studies. Alcock points out that as there is no definite definition, scientists will be unable to study psi effects and more importantly, when they are not evident. He argues that as there is no way of knowing when psi might occur, it is near impossible to control the conditions in which to study it. This is a prominent point in that control is essential in scientific studies and if it cannot be applied, the study cannot be carried out effectively. This leads onto his next point; Failure to achieve replication. Mainstream science will always require replication in its studies and Alcock makes this very clear. He discusses a friend of his, Adrian Parker, who - like many parapsychologists - does not attribute a failure in a study to the null hypothesis, instead he believes it is part of the psi-experimenter effect. This is when an psi experiment does not produce the desired result and instead of the result being recognized as a failure, it is believed it could of been caused by the experimenter and thus, does not advocate the null hypothesis. This explanation may lead the reader to believe that parapsychologists are so desperate to find the paranormal, they are willing to look at failures as triumphs.

A second point Alcock raises here is in reference to the Ganzfield. Palmer wrote:

"the marked heterogeneity of results across experiments leaves doubt about the future replicablilty of the phenomena outside parapsychology".

He then moves on to look at an article by Sherwood and Roe. In their studies they looked at the Maimonides studies of the 1960's. He notes they do provide a good review of studies relating to dream telepathy and clairvoyance, the thing he thought stood out the most was "the extreme messiness" of the data they obtained. This harks back to the point he made about classical science and its complex rules regarding tests and results. He later champions Jeffers in the article as the only neutral scientist who have pragmatically studied the psi phenomena. Jeffers was a colleague of his who approached him regarding the work he was to carry out. Alcock makes it clear in the paper that previous psi studies have methodologically fallen short and Jeffers had made it clear in his study this would not be the case. It transpires that Jeffers studies presented no support for the existence of psi. AS Alcock notes, Jeffers contribution did have fine merits. Firstly, It was carried out by an entirely neutral scientist who was - as Alcock himself said - open to the idea of psi existence. An interesting point to note here is that Jeffers study - although initially welcomed by the Parapsychological community - was later ignored as it did not produce the desired result. The reader might deduce from this that if research carried out by a true scientist produces no solid results and the para community now do not acknowledge it, perhaps parapsychologists are living a lie.

Alcock raises an interesting issue under the title of; "multiplication of entities". Whilst touching on the previously mentioned psi-experimenter effect, he discusses examples of when results have not been taken as advocating the Null Hypothesis. The Sheep Goat theory refers to those who believe in psi are more likely to produce evidence than those who do not. The author also introduces a very intriguing argument at this point. Instead of researchers attributing results of failure to the null hypothesis, they instead suggest a different effect; psi-missing effect. This suggests to the reader that parapsychologists are so desperate to find evidence of psi, they are willing to twist their results to prove their theories. It should be pointed here that Alcock does not go into great depth in explaining this and leaves the reader with perhaps an unfounded negative view of researchers. He does expand upon his point about failure being good in a parapsychologists eye in the final effect he discusses, the decline effect. Parapsychologists believe this effect takes place in individuals who originally produced good results in the first test but later only scores at chance level. Alcock states;

"Thus, failure is often interpreted as a kind of success, as an indication of the weird properties that this elusive psi possesses."

A further progression on this point is detailed in the section on Unfalsifiability. Alcock gives more wight to his argument by again referring to the failure to produce consistent data and details the importance of replication. Obviously, replication is paramount in science and makes it clear that perhaps parapsychologists are just chasing rainbows.

The section on Unpredictability raises another very important question. If psi is a real phenomena, it should be predictable. Many would see this as a valid point though some might discard it in that they may believe in the paranormal and are aware that it is not always possible to find proof of it.

Perhaps the most important part of this paper is that as Alcock reports, there has been a great lack of progress in parapsychology. Those who where previously unsure of what side to take may be swung to support skepticism once they learn very little has changed. He also notes that very little proof of psi has emerged and methods for testing haven't changed in many years. He does state that the new test are very promising though it is clear he is still very skeptical about results. Whilst discussing the methodological weaknesses, Alcock indicates that skeptics will naturally be inclined to look for flaws in the research design. He suggest that in order for him and others within the scientific community to accept results, the tests must be repeated again though more efficiently. The author uses the phrase, "throwing the baby out with the bath water" to illustrate a compelling point. He writes that perhaps skeptics are too eager to find flaws in psi studies and end up ignoring an interesting phenomena. This shows that he is still maintaining a objective stance on the argument and thinks critics should not be too hasty.

Statistics are readily employed in mainstream psychology and Alcock believes that they could be utilized more in parapsychology. Joseph Banks Rhine was one of the first people to guide parapsychology into more rigorous testing and as Alcock's states, 'passionately' believed in the scientific method.

It could be seen that those who study psi and believe in its existence are being overly presumptuous in what their result may be and Alcock illustrates this well with a reference to Sherlock Holmes;

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of suit facts."

This echoes his previous point of psi investigators manipulating findings and strengthens his argument on why we should remain skeptical. He progresses by discussing parapsychology's inability to work in conjunction with other sciences. He discusses a comment made by Donald Hebb (1978) in which Hebb said that if Parapsychology is right then the other sciences must be wrong in some respects. Hebb also states that science has been wrong before though in order for parapsychology to truly challenge current scientific beliefs, it must produce some hefty evidence. This could lead the reader to think that perhaps skepticism is a stronger argument in that parapsychology has not, as of yet, giving a strong enough argument. Alcock again details that within parapsychology, a phenomena is only viewed as paranormal if it defies current scientific explanation. This leads on to his next point, the 'Disinterest in Competing Hypothesis'. Alcock calls attention to the fact that perhaps parapsychology is not as focused as it could be. He is concerned that research is more interested in finding the expected results rather than explaining the experience. Some may believe this adds to the skeptics argument in that if those who advocate the existence of psi cannot focus on relevant areas, why should anyone believe in it. He also goes on to mention that the accounts which first sparked an interest in parapsychology where merely hear-say. The 'real-life'accounts of paranormal experiences which are often detailed through personal experience can be tainted by the individual in time and thus cannot be viewed as reliable evidence.

Alcock asks a question: Has mainstream science been unfair? He states that Parker believes mainstream science has not given parapsychology an objective trial though indicates he disagrees. He writes that in the past parapsychologists have been offered the chance to bring their studies to a greater audience. He elucidates his point by discussing how originally, the first recognized group of scientists that formed the American Society for Psychical Research had some eminent psychologists amongst its members. However, as time progressed and research yielded little evidence, those psychologists eventually departed from the community. The reader may be inclined to think that if psychologists used to be involved and interested though eventually retired from the argument for psi, why should they believe in the existence of psi?

Alcock stated at the outset that the piece would be approached with more interest in searching for new evidence than simply to disprove the existence of psi. This suggests he would remain as impartial as he possibly could. As the paper continues Alcock sets about stating his point through facts and opinions he has gathered. It appears to be a well balanced paper from the outset though it is clear throughout he doubts heavily in the existence of psi, he does however point out that he is a skeptic. The fact that he mentions his skepticism straight away - though is willing to change his view should solid evidence be exhibited - is commendable. It allows the reader to see that he is willing to adapt and that there is chance he will believe in the existence of psi. Though it should be said that this paper is written almost entirely with a skeptical viewpoint. He attributes his lack of faith in parapsychology to the lack of progress in its study. As was mentioned earlier in this paper, this argument is entirely justifiable. After all, had there not been advances in biology in the last hundred years, would anyone really believe in the possibility of cloning? Coupled with this, another important argument in Alcocks paper relates to the lack of agreement in parapsychology as to what psi actually is, how it is studied and how results should be interpreted. This and the other papers mentioned within make for a hefty case against parapsychologists being willing to attribute results to the null hypothesis. Throughout he highlights how parapsychologists appear to be somewhat stubborn. Instead of working together with other disciplines and attributing results to the null hypothesis, Alcock believes they are willing to contort results simply so they can say the have any proof at all. It does appear to be dubious in that the have an effect for every failed result. However, it could be argued by some that perhaps these really are paranormal results and thus, parapsychologists do not need to attribute results to the null hypothesis.

Members of the paranormal camp may argue that Alcocks paper is not objective enough. In fact, as he regularly states, he does not subscribe to the existence of psi and therefore may not be capable of writing a fair paper. Alcock himself believes

Had Alcocks paper been named, 'Does Parapsychology Give the Null Hypothesis a Chance?" it could be claimed that from the evidence he puts forward in the piece, the answer is no. However, it was not a question but a suggestion.