Re: Just wondering what is the status of Parapsychology research these days?

Due to society's ever-increasing interest in the paranormal, this is an excellent question. It is also one which would be summarily dismissed by a vast number of scientists, but I’m not one of them. Though I do not believe in the majority of psychic claims, I do think that there is some very good research which supports the idea that the mind can influence some external events. Historically, parapsychological research has had its ups and downs. In the early part of this century it was not uncommon for many university psychology departments to have a parapsychology division. One of the most famous was started by Dr. J.B. Rhine and his wife, Dr. Louisa E. Rhine at Duke University in 1927. Most of the research conducted at this time dealt with extrasensory perception, using a variety of tests including the well known Zener cards (a set of 25 cards, 5 each of circle, square, Greek cross, five-pointed star, three wavy lines), picture drawing (in which a subject tries to draw a picture of an unseen target), and remote viewing. In the mid 1950s, parapsychology research began to fall out of favor and most programs were shut down. In the 1960s, Dr Rhine set up a private research foundation, which today is called The Rhine Research Center. Today, there are several research groups which investigate paranormal phenomenon, though most, in my opinion, are less than reputable when it comes to objective scientific evaluation. One notable exception is The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program which was established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science. The purpose of PEAR is to investigate the interaction of human consciousness with delicate and highly-sensitive machines and processes using highly rigorous scientific methods.

Most of the research at PEAR focuses on the ability of test subjects to influence a variety of random generated events very precise non-random events. For example, test subjects might be instructed to try to influence the path of a ball bearing as it falls through a pyramid shaped structure designed to create a bell curve shape of ball bearings. Test subjects try to skew the bell curve so more bearings fall to the left or right of center than is statistically probable. In another test, a subject might be asked to influence the swing path of a pendulum. Over the past two decades, the PEAR researchers have run millions of trials and found statistically significant effects. These effects are small and only show significance due to the huge number of trials, but they appear to be accurate. Of course, one should never confuse biological significance with statistical significance. Still, these tests do suggest that human consciousness may be able to influence external events.

The next question might be how does human consciousness influence such machines. Most scientists who believe the data generated by PEAR and other similar groups think that the interaction occurs at a quantum mechanical level and that consciousness, rather than being reactive to external stimuli, is proactive instead. Indeed, one of the central tenets of quantum theory is that infinitesimally small events (or particles) cannot be measured accurately because the act of observing and measuring them alters their basic reality. This is exemplified in Schroedinger’s infamous cat, which is neither alive nor dead until the observer peeks into the box.

[Moderator's Note: the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you cannot simultaneously measure complementary variables to an arbitrary precision. E.g., for the position-momentum HUP, the more precisely you know the position of a particle, the less precise (more uncertain) will your momentum measurements be. A related idea, the Schroedinger thought experiment, says that the state of a particle cannot be known precisely until the particle is observed and refers directly to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics (it's supposed to point out how quantum mechanics is applicable only to quantum particles, and not macroscopic entities).]

The truth is that we scientists know squat about consciousness. We are just beginning to learn how fundamental aspects of the brain work let alone something as complex as consciousness. Therefore, we cannot say whether or not the human mind can physically alter reality. It certainly can alter our perception of reality as is evidenced by several well known illusions, such as the size of the moon when viewed against the horizon. In the end, I believe that there is too much strong scientific evidence as well as a ton of anecdotal evidence to dismiss paranormal phenomenon completely. Do I believe that the people at the Psychic Friends Network can tell you who you will marry - no. Do I believe that people can have dreams about the future - maybe. Do I believe that some people can influence a random number generator - yes. Hope this answered your question.