After 28 years, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research institute is finally giving up the ghost, bringing an end to arguably the most respectable -- or the least embarrassing -- parapsychological research effort. Is this cause for celebration? I'm not sure, but I think Princeton is probably happy to see it go.
Dr. Robert Jahn founded PEAR and ran it with private money as Princeton wasn't all that keen on the idea of spending its students and alumni's money on ESP, telekenesis and "the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality." According to the CBC,
Jahn, a former dean of engineering at Princeton, says it's time for him to move on to other projects. "For 28 years, we've done what we wanted to do, and there's no reason to stay and generate more of the same data," he told the New York Times. "If people don't believe us after all the results we've produced, they never will."
Which is just as it should be.
Jahn says he has convincing evidence supporting the notion that people can influence the outcome of physical experiments merely by concentrating. In other words, if you wish hard enough, you can make things happen. But the measure of the value of experimental data is not what the experimenter thinks. It's what other scientists think. Inveterate skeptic Bob Park of the University of Maryland calls Jahn's research institute "an embarrassment ... that squanders credibility."
Is that a fair description? Most of the literature produced by PEAR seems to have been published in the the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a publication Jahn helped found. Other founders include Thomas Gold (who has made remarkable and iconoclastic contributions to a variety of fields, although his theory that petroleum is not a fossil fuel represents quite a leap) and James Trefil (a prolific author of quite reputable books explaining science to non-scientists). So, while Jahn has failed to produce convincing or reproducible results, and has been unable to publish in the mainstream, he does keep some interesting and respectable company. This puts him significantly above the level of crackpots like Rupert Sheldrake, he of the nonsensical "sense of being stared at" theory of innate psychic powers.
Is there no place for scientific investigation of the paranormal? It's useful to note that the closure of PEAR follows closely on the heels of the decision of the former Committee for the Scientific Explanation of Claims of the Paranormal to change its name to The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Officially, this is so the group can better "deal with a wider range of questionable claims that have emerged in the contemporary world." But could there be something in the way of a more essential shift taking place?
Maybe we're seeing the beginning of an end of an era. Is the effort to use the natural world to try to explain the supernatural finally winding down?
- Log in to post comments
Oh but come on, the kids loved them!
So, what will Dr. Spengler do now?
For specific detailed accounts of some of the data-handling errors of PEAR, see the links in Mark Chu-Carroll's post.
So, what will Dr. Spengler do now?
Attend to his private collection of spores, molds, and fungus, presumably.
It's a pity most established science is too dogmatic to recognize valuable research in a ground breaking field. The role of the mind in scientific research seems more than smoke and mirrors. It doesn't matter how many times you get that monkey-robot Randi or other priests from CSICOP on this witch hunt, the data won't go away.
I applaud Jahn for his excellent research in this field. Perhaps many years from now PEAR will be recognized as a credible scientific organization, that was willing to embrace exploration rather than dogma.
Go ahead Inquisition, preach away... The Work will continue.
Also, the last time I checked -- Science doesn't explore the supernatural. PEAR was studying something present in Nature. Ohhhh, but that burns your straw-man fallacy, doesn't it. If you can call something that doesn't agree with your Belief System (B.S)supernatural, you don't have to worry about. The pain of being locked in one "reality tunnel." Ahhh the Agony! So much for neutral scientific inquiry!
Neither will the experimental shortcomings, or the data handling irregularities, or the instances of known fraud, or the complete lack of verifiably reproducible experiments.
Speaking of straw-man fallacies, I hope you're enjoying your own. Science doesn't explore the supernatural? So all those experiments testing the healing power of prayer didn't happen? You know, all the ones by the Mayo Clinic, and Duke University, and even the Templeton Foundation; the ones that showed no positive effect? What about the two that did report positive effects, but turned out to be fraudulent, by Elisabeth Targ and by Columbia University? Burn, baby burn.