No one should conclude from the preceding discussion that I am seeking an easy path for verifying paranormality. It is my position that this conclusion requires confirmation of a theory incorporating some paranormal principle, which in turn requires that predictions based on the theory be confirmed more successfully than those from competing conventional theories. Moreover, such confirmations must meet the same standards of evidence required of any scientific hypothesis, including an adequate degree of replicability. This might be construed alternatively from a Lakatosian framework as being a progressive research program based on a core assumption involving paranormality. Although I do not insist that each confirming experiment be completely immune from any ad hoc hypothesis that some CT might concoct, I nonetheless think my approach is conservative, reasonable, and responsible. I have no objection whatever to demands for rigorous methodology. All I am really asking is that some rigor be exhibited at the other end of the spectrum; in particular, CTs must recognize that until such time as they can make a credible scientific case for their explanations, the OPEs documented by parapsychologists over the past century represents a genuine challenge to conventional theory that cannot be swept under the rug by appeals to a priori conventions or ad hoc interpretations.
I label my position progressive skepticism. Is is skepticism because it requires a critical attitude toward
all hypothesized explanations of OPEs, and it concludes that at present there are no scientifically
adequate explanations for the critical mass of these events. It is progressive because it has faith that scientific
method, broadly interpreted, can ultimately provide or at least contribute to satisfactory explanations for these
events, and it encourages research toward that end. Progressive skepticism is similar, although not necessarily
identical, to zeteticism as defined and promoted by Marcello Truzzi
(in press).
An important corollary of progressive skepticism is that research from both conventional and paranormal perspectives should be encouraged, with resources, status, and so on, being allocated as indepently as possible of the theoretical orientations of the investigators. In some respects I was encouraged by our friends Zusne and Jone's proposal for a specific branch of psychology called anomalistic psychology to study OPEs. The proposal is welcome because it acknowledges that there are outstanding questions requiring empirical solutions. But a negative feature of their proposal is that for the foreseable future it excludes research from a paranormal perspective. That those of us who have a paranormal perspective are not even allowed to compete again shows the lengths to which the coherence principle will be taken, and it undercuts any claims that they, or those who share their position, can make of open-mindedness and commitment to free inquiry in this area.
This closed-mindedness also seems to be alive and well in many university psychology departments. I am particularly distressed at how frequently I hear of students being told that they will wreck their careers if they pursue research in parapsychology. I am not necessarily critizing the professors who give this advice but rather the existing climate that obliges them to give it. I am not referring here to the local TV astrologers and self-proclaimed psychics who often end up teaching in the Extension Division, but rather to the bright, competent, and level-headed students who usually are given this advice precisely because they are bright, competent, and level-headed. Not only does this state of affairs prevent the average quality of personnel in parapsychology from improving (something that CTs constantly complain about), but more importantly it is a blatant violation of the principle of academic freedom that psychology as a profession espouses. I hope that those psychologists who really do cherish academic freedom will take steps to correct this situation. Several prominent scientists from other (conventional) sciences have told me that similar tactics are used to enforce conformity to the current conventional viewpoint in their own disciplines and thus stifle new ideas and approaches. One wonders if science is not the ultimate loser as a result of these practices.
I would like to end this paper on a conciliatory note. I feel that progressive skepticism is a position that has the potential of uniting large segments of the more moderate constituencies on both sides of the psi controversy. In particular, I see a consensus beginning to emerge that there is only one defensible conclusion about the current status of the evidence regarding OPEs. That conclusion is that we can draw no conclusion, that we must suspend judgment. In the scenario I envision, people on the two sides would continue to have different opinions about how the issue will finally be resolved, and they would continue to do research from their respective orientations. We could lose the false dichotomy between proponents and critics, for each side would conduct research, propose interpretations of that research, and criticize the research and proposals of the other side n1Criticisms, of course, would also occur within each perspective. This is the path along which I think we may eventually resolve the psi controversy, to the benefit of everyone.
One final word to my CT friends. I think it is not just a coincidence that occult ideas thrive in just those areas where conventional scientitific knowledge is least completeto put it metaphorically, inner space and outer space. What this suggests to me is that if the objective is to finally stamp out occultism, the best approach is not to expend your ressources debunking stage psychics and ESP experiments, which most real occultists take even less seriously than you do, but rather to promote solid scientific research on these problems from a conventional perspective. But to do so with maximum effectiveness you will need the stimulation and, yes, the criticism that can only be provided by a vigorous competing paranormal research program. Of course you must run the risk that the paranormal research may ultimately prevail, but if you really have confidence in the correctness of your position that risk should be tolerable. In short, I would like to invite you to become progressive skeptics.