What do you think?
Rate this book
Science and Supernature
Is there more to our existence than modern science can measure? For more than a hundred years, parapsychology - the scientific study of paranormal phenomena - has tried to find the answer to this question. In Science and Supernature, psychologist James E. Alcock presents a critical evaluation of parapsychological research and reviews the current status of the evidence.
The book is divided into two parts. In Part 1, Dr. Alcock discusses a number of key
- What are "psychic" phenomena?
- If they exist, how can they be detected?
- What is the evidence for "psi"?
- Does parapsychology follow the rules of science?
- Are the critics fair?
He concludes that, to accept the reality of psychic phenomena, "we must accept that some force or process exists that cannot at this time be described in terms of positive properties, but only in terms of what it is not; a force that is capable of allowing for direct communication between two brains, regardless of the distance between them, and that allows the mind . . . to influence matter in such a way as to gain some desired goal."
Part 2, "Psi in the Laboratory," is adapted from the Background Paper Dr. Alcock was commissioned to write for the National Academy of Sciences for its now controversial report "Evaluating Human Performance." Here, Alcock reviews two areas of research that are considered by parapsychologists to be among the "best cases" in the the study of psychokinesis (mind over matter) and/or clairvoyance using random-event generators, and the study of remote-viewing by physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff at the Stanford Research Institute.
Alcock's judgements are stimulating and fair-minded. This is an important book for everyone interested in the study of psychic phenomena.
The book is divided into two parts. In Part 1, Dr. Alcock discusses a number of key
- What are "psychic" phenomena?
- If they exist, how can they be detected?
- What is the evidence for "psi"?
- Does parapsychology follow the rules of science?
- Are the critics fair?
He concludes that, to accept the reality of psychic phenomena, "we must accept that some force or process exists that cannot at this time be described in terms of positive properties, but only in terms of what it is not; a force that is capable of allowing for direct communication between two brains, regardless of the distance between them, and that allows the mind . . . to influence matter in such a way as to gain some desired goal."
Part 2, "Psi in the Laboratory," is adapted from the Background Paper Dr. Alcock was commissioned to write for the National Academy of Sciences for its now controversial report "Evaluating Human Performance." Here, Alcock reviews two areas of research that are considered by parapsychologists to be among the "best cases" in the the study of psychokinesis (mind over matter) and/or clairvoyance using random-event generators, and the study of remote-viewing by physicists Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff at the Stanford Research Institute.
Alcock's judgements are stimulating and fair-minded. This is an important book for everyone interested in the study of psychic phenomena.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1990
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 29, 2025
A PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSOR FINDS NO PERSUASIVE EVIDENCE FOR PSI
Emeritus professor of psychology James Alcock wrote in the Introduction to this 1990 book, “This book is about parapsychology. It deals in part with much of the best research that parapsychology has produced. However, it is based on a critical evaluation of that research. Other evaluators might have come to different conclusions. Indeed… I point to corresponding papers by parapsychologists who examine the same research and draw conclusions the opposite to mine. It is my hope that the reader who takes the time to digest my arguments… will come to agree that at this point there has yet to be a persuasive demonstration that anything ‘paranormal’ exists.” (Pg.2)
He adds, “In the pages that follow, the reader will learn of the many problems, both conceptual and methodological, that have plagued parapsychological research since its beginning. Given the weakness of the evidence accumulated over a century, the most interesting question must surely be, Why does the pursuit endure?” (Pg. 6)
He notes, “at best parapsychology struggles to maintain a toehold at the fringes of academia; mainstream science continues virtually to ignore its subject matter or even to reject and ridicule it. One finds no mention of psi phenomena in textbooks of physics or chemistry or biology. Lecturers do not address the paranormal in undergraduate or graduate science programs. Psychology students are rarely taught anything about the subject. Parapsychological research papers are only very infrequently published in the journals of ‘normal’ science, and parapsychologists have criticized leading scientific publications… for suppressing the dissemination of parapsychological research findings… Funds for parapsychological research are usually generated within parapsychology itself or come from private donors; the agencies that fund normal science turn a blind, or even hostile, eye toward parapsychological research proposals. The United States government, however, has provided multi-million-dollar support for psi research into remote viewing at SRI International in California.” (Pg. 13)
He points out, “the fact that no physical variable has ever been shown to influence the scoring rate in psi experiments… combined with the apparent total lack of constraints on the conditions under which psi can be manifested (whether forward in time, backward in time, across thousands of miles, between humans and animals, or even between humans and objects), serves to weaken the a priori likelihood that psi, as any source of force or ability, exists. After all, most psi experiments are very similar, in that all that is typically done is to examine two sets of numbers, representing targets and responses in ESP experiment or outcomes and aims in a PK experiment, for evidence of a nonchance association. It may simply be that the enterprise of parapsychology generates, from time to time, significant statistical deviations---be they the result of artifact, selective reporting, or whatever---which are then independent of the research hypothesis, so that no matter what the researcher is examining… the likelihood of obtaining significant deviations
remains the same.” (Pg. 41)
He acknowledges about the work of Helmut Schmidt, who “now uses randomly generated seed numbers, which than are fed into an algorithm [that] will generate a final score… the subject’s task is to alter the series in some way. After carefully reviewing the database of the Schmidt publications used by Palmer in his review, I am in agreement with Palmer that one can hardly explain away Schmidt’s results in terms of chance occurrence… I have no great confidence in statistics based on the conglomeration of a group of diverse studies, and I am content simply to say that Schmidt has accumulated some pretty impressive evidence that something other than chance is influencing the subjects’ scores.” (Pg. 90)
His ‘Overall Judgment’ of the Schmidt studies is, “This study is much better designed and executed than earlier Schmidt studies. The observed effect was relatively small, and in the light of unnecessary methodological sloppiness and complexity, one would expect that the authors would want to attempt to run a more refined experiment, with a control group in which no subjects serve, in order to try to understand the cause of the correlation, if it is replicated. It is far too early, in my view, to begin speculating about psi, even though it is not easy to come up with an explanation for the (somewhat marginal) results on the basis of the report.” (Pg. 172)
His overall conclusion is, “This examination of random-event generator and remote-viewing studies leads me to the inescapable conclusion that none of this research has served to demonstrate the reality of psi phenomenon. Instead, there are serious flaws and shortcomings that require elimination before one can have any confidence in the statistical departures from expectation. If one had to single out the most serious and recurrent problem, it would be … the absence of proper control groups or control trials… Psychological research is built around the concept of comparisons of experimental and control conditions. There is every reason to demand a similar approach in parapsychology.” (Pg. 126)
This book may be of interest to those seriously studying the evidence for parapsychology.
Emeritus professor of psychology James Alcock wrote in the Introduction to this 1990 book, “This book is about parapsychology. It deals in part with much of the best research that parapsychology has produced. However, it is based on a critical evaluation of that research. Other evaluators might have come to different conclusions. Indeed… I point to corresponding papers by parapsychologists who examine the same research and draw conclusions the opposite to mine. It is my hope that the reader who takes the time to digest my arguments… will come to agree that at this point there has yet to be a persuasive demonstration that anything ‘paranormal’ exists.” (Pg.2)
He adds, “In the pages that follow, the reader will learn of the many problems, both conceptual and methodological, that have plagued parapsychological research since its beginning. Given the weakness of the evidence accumulated over a century, the most interesting question must surely be, Why does the pursuit endure?” (Pg. 6)
He notes, “at best parapsychology struggles to maintain a toehold at the fringes of academia; mainstream science continues virtually to ignore its subject matter or even to reject and ridicule it. One finds no mention of psi phenomena in textbooks of physics or chemistry or biology. Lecturers do not address the paranormal in undergraduate or graduate science programs. Psychology students are rarely taught anything about the subject. Parapsychological research papers are only very infrequently published in the journals of ‘normal’ science, and parapsychologists have criticized leading scientific publications… for suppressing the dissemination of parapsychological research findings… Funds for parapsychological research are usually generated within parapsychology itself or come from private donors; the agencies that fund normal science turn a blind, or even hostile, eye toward parapsychological research proposals. The United States government, however, has provided multi-million-dollar support for psi research into remote viewing at SRI International in California.” (Pg. 13)
He points out, “the fact that no physical variable has ever been shown to influence the scoring rate in psi experiments… combined with the apparent total lack of constraints on the conditions under which psi can be manifested (whether forward in time, backward in time, across thousands of miles, between humans and animals, or even between humans and objects), serves to weaken the a priori likelihood that psi, as any source of force or ability, exists. After all, most psi experiments are very similar, in that all that is typically done is to examine two sets of numbers, representing targets and responses in ESP experiment or outcomes and aims in a PK experiment, for evidence of a nonchance association. It may simply be that the enterprise of parapsychology generates, from time to time, significant statistical deviations---be they the result of artifact, selective reporting, or whatever---which are then independent of the research hypothesis, so that no matter what the researcher is examining… the likelihood of obtaining significant deviations
remains the same.” (Pg. 41)
He acknowledges about the work of Helmut Schmidt, who “now uses randomly generated seed numbers, which than are fed into an algorithm [that] will generate a final score… the subject’s task is to alter the series in some way. After carefully reviewing the database of the Schmidt publications used by Palmer in his review, I am in agreement with Palmer that one can hardly explain away Schmidt’s results in terms of chance occurrence… I have no great confidence in statistics based on the conglomeration of a group of diverse studies, and I am content simply to say that Schmidt has accumulated some pretty impressive evidence that something other than chance is influencing the subjects’ scores.” (Pg. 90)
His ‘Overall Judgment’ of the Schmidt studies is, “This study is much better designed and executed than earlier Schmidt studies. The observed effect was relatively small, and in the light of unnecessary methodological sloppiness and complexity, one would expect that the authors would want to attempt to run a more refined experiment, with a control group in which no subjects serve, in order to try to understand the cause of the correlation, if it is replicated. It is far too early, in my view, to begin speculating about psi, even though it is not easy to come up with an explanation for the (somewhat marginal) results on the basis of the report.” (Pg. 172)
His overall conclusion is, “This examination of random-event generator and remote-viewing studies leads me to the inescapable conclusion that none of this research has served to demonstrate the reality of psi phenomenon. Instead, there are serious flaws and shortcomings that require elimination before one can have any confidence in the statistical departures from expectation. If one had to single out the most serious and recurrent problem, it would be … the absence of proper control groups or control trials… Psychological research is built around the concept of comparisons of experimental and control conditions. There is every reason to demand a similar approach in parapsychology.” (Pg. 126)
This book may be of interest to those seriously studying the evidence for parapsychology.
Displaying 1 of 1 review