Methodologies for investigating the paranormal

Posted by John Caddy on 21 August 2008 | 1 Comments

Tags: Paranormal Phenomena

The usual method adopted by Science for investigating paranormal phenomena is for an individual with supposed paranormal capabilities to be a ‘guinea pig’; observed from behind a battery of equipment by a ‘normal’ scientist. Whether or not the experimental procedure used is ‘double blind’ seems to me irrelevant, since this format makes a clear division between an observer following Cartesian logic, and the subject working in a different cognitive space. Analogies to the Uncertainty Principle have been made by various authors, and the requirement under quantum theory that observer and experiment should be considered as a unit, also comes to mind.

Since Science works by disproving hypotheses, scepticism is an inevitable consequence of ‘impartial observation’. I question in fact whether ‘impartial’ scientific observations are really impartial, since the scientific observer is usually operating from within a scientific paradigm within which there is currently no theoretically acceptable place for paranormal phenomena, except to see them as ‘hallucinations’. From dowsing the words in the everyday English vocabulary (see my paper in the Member’s Circle), it seems a reasonable postulate that the low energy conceptual vocabulary of Science is intended to inhibit the expansion of the energy body and its chakras, so that logical conclusions are not confounded by intuitive capabilities showing up and leading to apparently illogical (if inspired) results.

My conclusion is that an experimental method must be found to acquire useful results from the participants themselves, supposing that ‘the observer effect’ of quantum theory applies here also. A methodological analogy could perhaps be made to an epidemological search for the causes of disease by analysing population statistics, without preconceptions as to causative factors? Individual participants must record their observations without mutual consultation or extrinsic observers. A search for key factors in this ‘Subjective Science’ may be obtained by comparing the individual observations of participants for consistency or common elements. This sort of approach has the advantage for interested SMN groups, that they may themselves make meaningful observations as long as statistical criteria are observed.

Its worth noting that ‘vital energy disciplines’ usually contend that an expanded aura and open chakras require an accepting environment, a loving atmosphere, or a group ceremonial context. Again, this dictates that the relevant observations must come from within the group. While the emphasis should be on collecting and analysing the observations of the participants, a standard, experimental format is needed for statistical comparison. I.e., I am not advocating ‘New Age’ procedures!

John Caddy, PhD