Psy 429. Paranormal Phenomena and Experience Andrew D. Dewald

PSY 429. Paranormal Phenomena and Experience

• Andrew D. Dewald

What are we going to do?

• Social Science + Natural Science

• Religion + Philosophy

• Importance of skepticism, scientific analysis, and valid logic when evaluating fringe science/paranormal claims

What do I call you?

• Dr. Dewald?

• Mr. Dewald?

• Professor Dewald?

The Books

Penn and Teller

What do you have to do?

• 1. Midterm

• 2. Final

• 3.Reading Responses

• 4. Paper

• 5. SPEAK UP!

• There is no attendance, but you must be present on the day that responses are do….somebody else may NOT hand them in.

Reading Responses

• Based on Chapters in the book

• You do it…you get credit

• Write a short description of your reaction to the reading, anything you have in your life that relates and 1-3 questions.

• We will go over them in class and discuss.

The Paper

• 1. Pick a Paranormal Topic

• 2. Explain the history and current information about it.

• 3. Using techniques learned in class, explain why this is a paranormal belief and the tactics used to convey it’s reality.

• 4. Show evidence against the proposed phenomena based on science and empiricism.

• October 3rd: Due date for proposed topic.

Examples

• Big Foot

• God

• Creationism

• Aliens

• UFO’s

• Psychics

• Monsters.

• Faith Healing

• Levitation

• Ghosts

• Conspiracy theories

Extra Credit

• Experiments:

• 2.5 points for participation
• No more than 3/ semester

• Local Publication coverage of paranormal events

• Must be a local and current.
• Cut out/ print, bring in and present.
• 3 points
• (cat example)

What we are not going to do

• This class is NOT a witch hunt.

• We will not bash other beliefs

• One person’s “weird” thing could be another’s cherished belief!

• We will be thinking about things in an empirical and skeptical manner, NOT ripping on, making fun of, or taunting others.

What are we going to do?

• Baruch Spinoza

• Dutch Philosopher
• “I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to UNDERSTAND them.”

However…

• Some things are just absolutely insane….

• We can have a chuckle at their expense, but be sure to respect the views and feelings of your peers in the class so as not to make enemies.

• Discuss……don’t Argue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

About me…

• Pennsylvania native

About me

• Undergrad:

• Lebanon Valley College (PA)

• London Metropolitan University (UK)

About me

• Hershey Inc…..

About me…

• Guitars, Guns, Baseball ….

Lets talk….

• Name:

• Year:

• Where you from?

• Why did you take this class?

What are some things you have heard of?

• Has anybody experienced anything paranormal?

• Have you known anybody who has made these claims?

• What is the general consensus in the United States about this sort of stuff?

What will we cover?

• Ghosts

• Afterlife

• Channeling

• Near-death experiences

• Psychics

• Psychology and all it’s BS!

• UFOs and alien abductions

• Creationism vs. evolution

• Religious miracles

How will we cover?

• 1.Reviewing the myriad of events that are considered to be paranormal

• 2. Addressing the public’s interest in paranormal phenomena

• 3. Evaluating and dispelling the myths surrounding paranormal events

• 4. Encouraging scientific rigor when examining paranormal events

• 5. Reviewing the consequences of erroneous belief systems.

Psychology?

• Unknown to most people

• Information concerning human behavior and the unconscious

• Most who are considered to be in the field of psychology (as determined by the general population) are far from it.

• SO WHAT?!

Psychology?

• Requires critical thinking skills!!!

• More so than any other science.

• Example: Chemistry

• Hydrochloric Acid and Aluminum Foil: Predictions?

• Example: Psychology

• Josh’s parents get divorced when he is 7….when he turns 25 he will be __________________

Skeptic?

• What is a skeptic?

• Do you know of any?

Skeptic?

• Skeptic

• Greek: “thoughtful or full of though”
• 2500 years old!
• Plato and Socrates
• “all I know is that I know nothing”

Skeptics?

• Modern Skepticism:

• Science based movement
• First “Pop” skeptic: James Randi (the amazing)
• 70’s and 80’s-debunked many psychics and spiritualists on the Tonight Show.

Skepticism

• Embodies in the scientific method

• Skepticism is a METHOD leading to conclusions
• A skeptic is “one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it”
• “That’s nice…prove it”

Skepticism

• 1.Universal Skepticism:

• “The reality of the senses and the validity of rational inference should be mistrusted.”
• Philosophy: this has led to Extreme Solopsism:
• “The reality of the external world and even one’s existence are doubted.”

Universal?

• Problems?

• Overall, it can be seen that “Universal Skepticism is negative, self-defeating, and contradictory

Skepticism

• 2. Selective Skepticism

• If a finding seems scientifically valid, it is accepted, until a better theory comes along to replace it.
• there are NO absolute laws !!!
• …a bit better

Science?

• What the heck is science?

What science is NOT

• 1. Not defined by subject matter

• Bio, Chem, Psych, Physics…..what about selling cars?

• 2. Not defined by use of particular instrumentation and tools.

• Do I have to blow stuff up?

So what is it then?

• You tell me……

• A way of thinking!

Science!

• Science and Skepticism

• “a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed or inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.”
• What are some VERY important words here?

Scientific Principles

• Induction

• Forming a hypothesis from existing data

• Deduction

• Making specific predictions based on hypothesis

• Observation

• Gathering data, driven by our hypothesis that tells us what to look for

• Verification

• Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.

Scientific principles

• Via the scientific method we can come to the following conclusions:

• 1.Hypothesis
• A testable statement accounting for a set of observations
• 2.Theory
• A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis
• evolution
• 3.Fact:
• A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.
• The earth is not flat

Rationalism

• Basing conclusion on logic and evidence

• How do we know the world is round?
• Dogmatism:
• Basing conclusion on authority
• Parents said so
• I said so
• Textbook says so

Scientific Principles

• How to ALWAYS think about explaining the universe…

• Systematic Empiricism

• Production of Public Knowledge

• Examination of Solvable Problems

Systematic Empiricism

• Empiricism?

• Relying in observation…good enough?

• STRUCTURE!!!!

• My car is scratched: Who did it?

Production of Public Knowledge

• “No man is an island”

• Must be public and repeatable.

• Why is this necessary?

• Findings must be presented to the community in such a way that they can be replicated, criticized or extended by anyone

Cold Fusion?

• What is it?

• Pons and Fleischmann

• Faulty measures

• Required Special Instruments

Empirically Solvable Problems

• Predict Control Explain

• What are some questions?

• What are NOT some questions?

• Pinker: Mysteries to Problems?

• Jefferson and Sally?! Mystery back then…Problem now!

Pseudoscience/ Paranormal

• Characteristics:

• 1. non-falsifiable or irrefutable hypothesis.

• What does non-falsifiable mean?

• No evidence can show the hypothesis to be wrong.

Falsifiability?

• Scientific theories must be presented in a way so as that they can be shown to be false.

• What “SHOULD” happen and what will “NOT” happen

• Predictions on Josh: He SHOULD develop some sort of behavior related to the divorce of his parent, how it manifests itself is TBD.

• Josh will NOT develop the power to kill a deer from 40 yards with mind bullets, on account of his parents divorce.

Lets try one…

• I, Andrew D. Dewald: am God

• I created all of you

• I control all of you

• And you all have no free will.

• I determine everything

Characteristic 2

• Unwillingness to look closely at the phenomenon they claim exists.

• Need for hard data completely ignored.
• We never landed on the moon

What if science can’t explain?

• If science can’t fully explain the phenomena COMPLETELY, reasonable explanations are ignored or dismissed and the proponent concludes that pseudoscience is supported.

• Why is this dangerous?

Santa?

• Who has seen him?

• NASA Apollo 8 saw him

• Santa produces

• Who does the burden lie on?

• The proponent or the Skeptic?

• -shifting the burden to the Skeptic is NOT a legitimate means of defending unattainable hypothesis.

Because I’m a nerd….

• 2 Billion Children in the World

• (Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children no need to apply)
• = 378 Million Children (Assuming they are good)

• 31 Hours to work= 821.6 visits per second

• 1/1000th of a second/ kid

• 650 miles per second, 3000 times the speed of sound =14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy per SECOND

Conspiracy Theories

• Not paranormal in nature but pop up in the belief systems of proponents of claims.

• Who knows some?

• Biggest Problem?

• HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE TO NOT COME FORWARD!

Polywater

• 1960’s: Russia

• Boils way high, freezes way low

• More stable than H20

• If allowed to contaminate actual water…BOOM!

• Skeptics could not make it

• Russia: You’re not doing it right!

Conclusion:

• Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof!

• Science is open minded: Believers are NOT!

What is the Paranormal?

• A subset of pseudoscience

• “any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions”

• A reliance on explanations for alleged phenomena that are WELL outside the bounds of established science.

• ParanormalPseudoscience

Pseudo vs. Paranormal

• UFO’s-You tell me.

• We have been visited by aliens who use wormhole technology to warp space to reach us.

• All UFO space craft is actual psychic projections from the dead spirits of the Universe.

Who cares?

• What does it matter if people believe crazy stuff?

• What do you think?

Who cares?

• Late 19th/ Early 20th century:

• People started to care
• Spiritualists were exposed by magicians.
• Today:
• CSICOP (1970)
• Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.

CSICOP

• CSICOP established several goals:

• A. “to encourage the investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims in a responsible, scientific way”
• B. “to obtain and disseminate to the public accurate, scientifically reliable information about the paranormal.”

Who cares?

Question:

• Is teaching skepticism harmful to curiosity and creativity?

• What do you think?

Why do they care?

• I. Claims might be true!

• A.Hypnotism
• Franz Anton Mesmer 1700’s
• B. Stones from space?(17th c)
• C. Acupuncture?(70’s)
• Aliens?
• (sure)

Why do they care?

• II. Responsibility to inform the public:

• America is easy:
• Nisbet (1998)
• 45%-Faith Healing
• 30%-UFO’s (like actually here now)
• 37%- Astrology (like in the paper!)
• 25%-Reincarnation (Christians)

Why do they care?

• II. Responsibility to inform the public:

• The public spends a lot of time and MONEY on this junk.
• Fraud (John Edward)
• Uncritical coverage of paranormal claims (Faith healers, prayer, Mary on toast)
• Alternative Medicine (10 BILLION/ year)

Why do they care?

• III. Dangers in belief:

• So what if I believe?
• 3 levels of why this is trouble:
• 1.Philosophical
• 2. Practical
• 3. Social

Philosophy:

• False beliefs about how the world actually works= DANGEROUS!

• Truth=good

• Holding an incorrect view of how the world works is referred to as a?

Practical

• New Kona Coffee:

• 200% the regular caffeine! (only has 10%)

• Problems?

• The Amish (sorry boys):

• Prayer over inoculation

Social Bringing it to the masses!

• Uncritical acceptance of paranormal belief systems can be extremely damaging

• Examples:

Conclusion:

• Those are extremes

• However: If one accepts faulty evidence, intellectual shoddiness and fraud and twisted logic for little things…it be comes EASIER to accept the same type of evidence in support for REALLY bad stuff.