What do you think?
Rate this book
A Skeptic's Handbook of Parapsychology
This is the first comprehensive collection of essays by many of the world's leading sceptics and parapsychologists. It combines a detailed history of parapsychology and psychic research with a broad view of the current status of the field.Where does parapsychology stand today? Is parapsychology a science? Has ESP been demonstrated? Does psychic power exist? What do the sceptics have to say about the work of J. B. Rhine, S. G. Soal, the British Society for Psychical Research, and other research in parapsychology? How do they view such well-known "psychic" personalities as Eusapia Palladino, the Fox sisters, and Uri Geller? What are the sceptical evaluations of extrasensory perception, psychokinesis, ghosts, near-death experiences, life after death, poltergeists, "psychic detectives," and other paranormal claims? Although a large majority of the essays have been written expressly for this volume, some classical sceptical pieces are included, such as the confessions of Margaret Fox Kane and Douglas Blackburn.
- GenresParanormal
727 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1985
94 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 3, 2025
A FINE COLLECTION OF ESSAYS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE FOR/AGAINST PARAPSYCHOLOGY
Paul Kurtz (1925-2012) was a prominent American skeptic and secular humanist, who was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1985 book, “Many books and collections of essays on parapsychology have been published over the years, written and edited by those who support belief in psychic phenomena. There have been far fewer collections about the paranormal written by its critics. This volume is the first to bring together many of the leading skeptics to evaluate the entire history of the field of parapsychology and psychic research and to examine the results. The contributors were asked to focus on one or more aspects of the field: Does ESP exist? What is the evidence for it? How reliable is this evidence? Can two or more minds communicate outside normal sensory channels? Has precognition been demonstrated? What about psychokinesis and levitation? Can psychics assist the police in locating missing persons or in solving crimes? Does the mind survive the death of the body?
“Although the contributors [are] … predominantly skeptical of psychic claims, some parapsychologists have been included to defend the parapsychological point of view. 19 of the following chapters were written especially for this collection, and 11 previously published essays have been added to deal with particular issues… I have also included three important overviews of psychical research: one [1909] by Simon Newcomb, the first president of the American Society of Psychical Research… the second is John Coover’s survey of psychic research through 1927; and the third [1971] is by Eric Dingwall, who was … associated with the .. British Society for Psychical Research…” (Pg. xi)
Ray Hyman explains about his essay, “the evidence for psi reviewed in this paper comes from investigations that today’s parapsychologists would not put before us as part of their strongest case for psi. Many of these parapsychologists may believe I was unfair in dwelling upon these castoffs from the past… Each of the cases from the past was, in its own time, considered to be ... an example of scientifically sound evidence for psi. It is only subsequent generations… who have set the preceding examples aside… whatever the reason, each generation’s best cases for psi are cast aside by subsequent generations of parapsychologists… Consequently the evidential data base for psi is always shifting. Earlier cases are… replaced with… newer and seemingly more promising lines of research.” (Pg. 85-86)
Betty Markwick reports, “In 1974, W.J. Levy, director of [J.B.] Rhine’s prestigious Institute, was detected in fraud by his fellow researchers and actually admitted to bolstering his results… Should one conclude that all apparently significant psi experiments are flawed by error or fraud? Not necessarily. The field of parapsychology may be particularly vulnerable, but orthodox science has its share of malpractice.” (Pg. 306)
Martin Gardner explains, “Jule Eisenbud, who wrote an entire book on Ted [Serios], has repeatedly challenged [James] Randi to break his protocols. Why has Randi refused? Because Eisenbud, having learned from magicians how Ted could have cheated, now wants to impose on Randi controls that were never imposed on Ted. Magicians think Randi has already broken Eisenbud’s protocols; but Eisenbud does not think so, and neither do many top parapsychologists. Researchers typically demand of magicians that they repeat past miracles under conditions radically unlike those that prevailed when the ‘psychic’ produced them.” (Pg. 355)
John Beloff [who is ‘pro-parapsychology] asserts, “to rely exclusively on the experimental evidence to settle the question of the basic existence of psi is to betray a profound misunderstanding of the role of experimentation in science. Scientists do not carry out experiments with the aim, primarily of making converts, though every successful experiment strengthens the credibility of the phenomenon under investigation. They carry out experiments in order to test hypotheses and thereby to advance our understanding of the phenomena… That is why most parapsychological researchers at the present time are avowedly ‘process-oriented’ rather than ‘proof-oriented’ in their work… But, however important such process-oriented research may be in the long run, I do not think we have yet reached the stage where it can be made to bear the weight of the controversy directed at the proof issue.” (Pg. 360)
Later, Beloff argues, “Are we … justified in dismissing the career of [Eusapia Palladino]… with the one simple word ‘trickery’?... It is not… surprising that people are content to clutch at any straw as an excuse for not having to take these things seriously and are pathetically grateful to critics like [C.E.M.] Hansel whom they can cite in self-justification… But, for those who are willing to make that leap of the imagination… there are a number of lessons we can learn from her career. In the first place, it reminds us that fraud can go hand in hand with genuine psychic ability, so that it is always risky to generalize from the discovery that cheating has occurred. There may be all kinds of psychological reasons why certain persons in certain situations indulge in trickery.” (Pg. 372-373)
Paul Kurtz acknowledges, “I must confess that I am unable to explain why there are significant above-chance or below-chance runs: to maintain that those are due to psi, present or absent, is precisely what is at issue. How many validated cases do we actually have of significant below-chance runs in the laboratory. Are they as numerous as above-chance runs?... We still need to come up with possible alternative explanations. Some that have been suggested are bias, poor experimental design, fraud, and chance. There may be others.” (Pg. 514)
He continues, “a basic problem endemic to parapsychology [is] the lack of a clearly worked out conceptual framework. Without such a causal theory, the parapsychologists can slip from one ad hoc explanation to another. In some cases we cannot say that telepathy is operating---it may be clairvoyance... if it is not precognition, then psychokinesis may be the culprit… I feat that the central hypothesis of parapsychology, that mind is separable from body and that the ‘ghost in the machine’ can act in uncanny ways, often makes it difficult to determine precisely what, if anything, is happening.” (Pg. 515)
Charles Akers observes, “The quality of ESP research is often judged on the degree to which the procedures have excluded experimenter bias, subliminal perception, or fraud by the subjects and/or experimenters. Yet there is nearly as much controversy over these alternative explanations as there is over the parapsychological claims themselves. Thus the extent to which the experimenter expectancies can bias subject responses is still in dispute, and the mechanisms for such effects, when they do occur, are not yet well-understood… the actual incidence of fraud is unknown. Inevitably, the weights that quality coders assign to controls against such variables will vary, depending on the theoretical bias of the coder.” (Pg. 617)
This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying the evidence for parapsychology.
Paul Kurtz (1925-2012) was a prominent American skeptic and secular humanist, who was Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He wrote in the Introduction to this 1985 book, “Many books and collections of essays on parapsychology have been published over the years, written and edited by those who support belief in psychic phenomena. There have been far fewer collections about the paranormal written by its critics. This volume is the first to bring together many of the leading skeptics to evaluate the entire history of the field of parapsychology and psychic research and to examine the results. The contributors were asked to focus on one or more aspects of the field: Does ESP exist? What is the evidence for it? How reliable is this evidence? Can two or more minds communicate outside normal sensory channels? Has precognition been demonstrated? What about psychokinesis and levitation? Can psychics assist the police in locating missing persons or in solving crimes? Does the mind survive the death of the body?
“Although the contributors [are] … predominantly skeptical of psychic claims, some parapsychologists have been included to defend the parapsychological point of view. 19 of the following chapters were written especially for this collection, and 11 previously published essays have been added to deal with particular issues… I have also included three important overviews of psychical research: one [1909] by Simon Newcomb, the first president of the American Society of Psychical Research… the second is John Coover’s survey of psychic research through 1927; and the third [1971] is by Eric Dingwall, who was … associated with the .. British Society for Psychical Research…” (Pg. xi)
Ray Hyman explains about his essay, “the evidence for psi reviewed in this paper comes from investigations that today’s parapsychologists would not put before us as part of their strongest case for psi. Many of these parapsychologists may believe I was unfair in dwelling upon these castoffs from the past… Each of the cases from the past was, in its own time, considered to be ... an example of scientifically sound evidence for psi. It is only subsequent generations… who have set the preceding examples aside… whatever the reason, each generation’s best cases for psi are cast aside by subsequent generations of parapsychologists… Consequently the evidential data base for psi is always shifting. Earlier cases are… replaced with… newer and seemingly more promising lines of research.” (Pg. 85-86)
Betty Markwick reports, “In 1974, W.J. Levy, director of [J.B.] Rhine’s prestigious Institute, was detected in fraud by his fellow researchers and actually admitted to bolstering his results… Should one conclude that all apparently significant psi experiments are flawed by error or fraud? Not necessarily. The field of parapsychology may be particularly vulnerable, but orthodox science has its share of malpractice.” (Pg. 306)
Martin Gardner explains, “Jule Eisenbud, who wrote an entire book on Ted [Serios], has repeatedly challenged [James] Randi to break his protocols. Why has Randi refused? Because Eisenbud, having learned from magicians how Ted could have cheated, now wants to impose on Randi controls that were never imposed on Ted. Magicians think Randi has already broken Eisenbud’s protocols; but Eisenbud does not think so, and neither do many top parapsychologists. Researchers typically demand of magicians that they repeat past miracles under conditions radically unlike those that prevailed when the ‘psychic’ produced them.” (Pg. 355)
John Beloff [who is ‘pro-parapsychology] asserts, “to rely exclusively on the experimental evidence to settle the question of the basic existence of psi is to betray a profound misunderstanding of the role of experimentation in science. Scientists do not carry out experiments with the aim, primarily of making converts, though every successful experiment strengthens the credibility of the phenomenon under investigation. They carry out experiments in order to test hypotheses and thereby to advance our understanding of the phenomena… That is why most parapsychological researchers at the present time are avowedly ‘process-oriented’ rather than ‘proof-oriented’ in their work… But, however important such process-oriented research may be in the long run, I do not think we have yet reached the stage where it can be made to bear the weight of the controversy directed at the proof issue.” (Pg. 360)
Later, Beloff argues, “Are we … justified in dismissing the career of [Eusapia Palladino]… with the one simple word ‘trickery’?... It is not… surprising that people are content to clutch at any straw as an excuse for not having to take these things seriously and are pathetically grateful to critics like [C.E.M.] Hansel whom they can cite in self-justification… But, for those who are willing to make that leap of the imagination… there are a number of lessons we can learn from her career. In the first place, it reminds us that fraud can go hand in hand with genuine psychic ability, so that it is always risky to generalize from the discovery that cheating has occurred. There may be all kinds of psychological reasons why certain persons in certain situations indulge in trickery.” (Pg. 372-373)
Paul Kurtz acknowledges, “I must confess that I am unable to explain why there are significant above-chance or below-chance runs: to maintain that those are due to psi, present or absent, is precisely what is at issue. How many validated cases do we actually have of significant below-chance runs in the laboratory. Are they as numerous as above-chance runs?... We still need to come up with possible alternative explanations. Some that have been suggested are bias, poor experimental design, fraud, and chance. There may be others.” (Pg. 514)
He continues, “a basic problem endemic to parapsychology [is] the lack of a clearly worked out conceptual framework. Without such a causal theory, the parapsychologists can slip from one ad hoc explanation to another. In some cases we cannot say that telepathy is operating---it may be clairvoyance... if it is not precognition, then psychokinesis may be the culprit… I feat that the central hypothesis of parapsychology, that mind is separable from body and that the ‘ghost in the machine’ can act in uncanny ways, often makes it difficult to determine precisely what, if anything, is happening.” (Pg. 515)
Charles Akers observes, “The quality of ESP research is often judged on the degree to which the procedures have excluded experimenter bias, subliminal perception, or fraud by the subjects and/or experimenters. Yet there is nearly as much controversy over these alternative explanations as there is over the parapsychological claims themselves. Thus the extent to which the experimenter expectancies can bias subject responses is still in dispute, and the mechanisms for such effects, when they do occur, are not yet well-understood… the actual incidence of fraud is unknown. Inevitably, the weights that quality coders assign to controls against such variables will vary, depending on the theoretical bias of the coder.” (Pg. 617)
This book will be of great interest to those seriously studying the evidence for parapsychology.
October 11, 2014
A really quite exceptional compilation, full of treasures about the history of spiritualism and psi research. A proper review of this book would be a full-scale essay, for which I certainly don't have time. Among the many highlights are Ray Hyman's long introductory survey of the field (someone should think to republish an updated version of this as a book in its own right), Trevor Hall on the Borley Rectory shenanigans, Martin Gardner on Walker's theories (long before Deepak Chopra!) of quantum psi . . . but I'm being unfair on too many others by singling out just these three. The book's massive -- any attempt to read it in your bath is destined for a sad end -- but so much of it is so very well written that reading it hardly seems an imposition.
Yes, some of the material in the book is a tad dated, and of course there are omissions as a result (wot, no John Edward or Sylvia Browne? What a joy it'd have been to read some of these writers mauling those two), but that's really no more than a tiny concern. Much recommended for anyone who wants an antidote to all the media trash about the paranormal.
Yes, some of the material in the book is a tad dated, and of course there are omissions as a result (wot, no John Edward or Sylvia Browne? What a joy it'd have been to read some of these writers mauling those two), but that's really no more than a tiny concern. Much recommended for anyone who wants an antidote to all the media trash about the paranormal.
October 20, 2008
Very interesting topic, but boy is it a wooden read.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews