Hi Art,

Thank you for your answer!

> I think that determined doubters will find and exploit
> any weakness in Parapsychology in order to dismiss
> the totality. It is not much different from the
> "creationist" who searches for anything incomplete
> or possibly inaccurate in our current scientific
> understanding of evolution and cosmology in order
> to reinforce their preconceived notions.


I strongly agree. It is just because of that situation parapsychologists
ought to be extra careful in their peer review.


> Researchers in other fields are generally given more
> leeway.

Yes. Their fields are well established and there is not such a need for
suspicions. They have good funding, too.

> I have tremendous respect for Radin, and I think
> that many of his experimental findings such as
> Weighted Sequential Analysis should be paid more
> attention. Does he frequently speculate upon or
> dramatize the future of Parapsychology? Certainly.
> The world needs dreamers to give us goals to aim for.


Yes, but it seems you missed my point. I have nothing against speculation if
it is careful and has good grounds. But dreaming without scientific evidence
and even against scientific evidence and logic is not good for
parapsychology as a scientific field. And Todd Carroll had good points
against Radin in my opinion.


> In my experience it is not true that Parapsychologists often
> miss the opportunity for criticism. Quite the contrary,
> in fact, I find Parapsychologists to be the most internally
> critical field scientists on the planet, which is my they also
> utilize the most careful and precise experimental protocol
> according to institutional surveys by Rupert Sheldrake.
> Parapsychologists should be commended for their
> thoroughness in self-policing their own field of research.


I have also read that 'double-blinding paper' by Sheldrake, and it is good
he has written it. But I don't agree about the internal criticism by peers.
Would you please give some examples that I must have missed? Has somebody in
the field criticized the Persinger and Koren paper that I have commented? Do
you think it has a high enough scientific standard?

Persinger has theorized also about geology and UFOs. Those thoughts are more
often reviewed than his theories about hauntings. See for example:

Wild and Bemusing Earth Theories
The Tectonic Strain Theory of UFOs [by Michael Persinger]
http://geology.about.com/od/wildgeotheories/Wild_and_Bemusing_Earth_Theories.htm
.
Unfortunately the geologists have only cited a long article written by
Persinger himself without commenting what is wrong with his theories.

I found a little more detailed criticism:

"Canadian researcher [astronomer] Chris Rutkowski of the University of
Manitoba has become a prominent harsh critic of Persinger's Tectonic Strain
Theory. For one thing, Rutkowski argues, in order to try to accommodate UFO
sightings in regions far removed from faults, Persinger has claimed that
UFO-like lights or hallucinations can manifest hundreds of miles away from
an area of seismic activity. Not only does this place an absurdly great
distance between the actual area of tectonic stress and the surmised
significant EM field, it also makes the theory unscientific by destroying
any possible predictive power. Nearly every place on the planet lies within
a few hundred miles of a seismically active area. Rutkowski pointed out
severe flaws in Persinger's statistical methodology, since he confused
possible correlation (however weak) with causality. For example, one could
more easily explain occasional clusters of UFO sightings along earthquake
fault-lines by the fact that populations often occur there in higher
densities and by the fact that transportation routes often follow major
fault lines, such as the San Andreas fault in California."
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Michael_Persinger

Normally, the critic of Persinger found in UFO and "paranormal" sites is
favorable like the following:

"According to Dr. Michael Persinger, a respected geologist, there appears to
be a relationship between tectonic strain and increased alien encounters."
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Ry8nIzsF-AC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=%22michael+p\
ersinger%22+%2B+geologist&source=web&ots=ggo8sUZnVg&sig=WTuNGKeq3V_ruJu8HyWnbYv0\
19I&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

Sorry to criticize Persinger so heavily, because he has his merits in
experimental research with his 'magnetic helmet'. But the scientific method
must _always_ be used correctly in my opinion.

In the 70's and 80's there was much more internal criticism in
parapsychology than nowadays. For example, Charles T. Tart and Rex G.
Stanford had then a lively and hot argument.

Adrian Parker (2001) has written a review of the situation of parapsychology
as a science and also some criticism:
http://www.psy.gu.se/PDF/parapsychologyAP.pdf

- Olavi