Proof or Process research in Parapsychology?

Question

Is there any agreement among parapsychologist (or other scientist that study psi phenomena) as which is more important?

Which one are most current research/experiments focused on?

Is it possible to have a process based experiment that also involves gathering supporting evidence (proof)?

Has any psi phenomena been so well established that further proof research is a waste of resources?

Answer 1

Both forms of research are important and they serve different purposes. Proof-oriented is useful in deciding whether there's a "there there." Process-oriented is useful in learning the variables underlying the effect, or for testing explanatory models.

Most research conducted today by established psi researchers tends to be process-oriented, because they've already satisfied themselves that there are real phenomena worthy of study. Newer researchers tend to focus on proof-oriented designs because they're still trying to convince themselves that the effects are real.

In my opinion, there is little need to conduct more pure proof-oriented remote viewing, ganzfeld telepathy, dream telepathy, DMILS, or RNG-PK experiments. I believe the meta-analytic data for these classes of studies strongly indicate that something interesting is going on. The question now is what. (Process-oriented studies often include elements of proof-oriented designs.)

Answer 2

My opinion is that a phenomenon has to be established first before you can start asking the how and why questions. Of course it goes without saying that parapsychologists think its established and want to move on to other things, but it's pretty clear that psi is NOT generally accepted in science. You won't find it in any textbooks. No physics courses include how PK influences movement of objects. Parapsychologists have a long long way to go before psi has been demonstrated with enough evidence that its existence is more likely than its non-existence. When that has been demonstrated then it can move forward with the how and why otherwise its pseudoscience.

Answer 3

Just to get a handle on this...According to Ingo Swann there are three interconnected states of all research.

      "The first, or initial, state has to do with identifying proof, i.e., proof-discovery.

      The subsequent state to proof-discovery is process-discovery, which refers to establishing what goes on within what has been proven as existing in fact.

      The third state, applications-discovery, downloads from process-discovery, in that it is only after discovering the processes within something that practical applications can be innovated.

      Thus, first there is proof, then discovery of process, after which applications become possible."

OK. Most research I have seen is slanted toward proof, but there are some very gray areas. It's hard to explain something like the government project STAR GATE (Controlled Remote Viewing). It was proof, process, and applications research.

While there is interesting evidence for psi phenomena, there is still a need for more proof before many will consider it established as fact.