How would one go about getting a Ph.D. in parapsychology? What school(s) would admit to offering such a degree, and how could one ever defend his/her thesis on such a subject? - Jinx 
Why bother?
You don’t need a PhD to read tea leaves, & con widows by “contacting their husbands in the Great Beyond”. :rolleyes:
Fortune tellers and mediums are not parapsychologists. :rolleyes:
If it interests you…GO FOR it. Somethings are better left unexplained, especially the unexplained…but if no one yearned for the explanation…well, you know. The world is flat and blah blah blah. Besides what are those things they found in caves that are shaped as perfect spirals moving in an unexplained fashion…and those things are alive…its fact. They are strange organisms that have no relevancy. But, they exist.
There really is no such scientific field as “parapsychology” and no accredited PhD programs. It isn’t really possible to teach or learn anything about a something which has never been demonstrated to exist, which is not necessitated as a hypothesis to explain anything about any observed phenomenon and which violates the known laws of physics. The furthest any of this stuff goes academically is to try to test volunteers to see if they can do any kind of magic. They never can but (apparently, at least according to one of the linked sites), some schools humor this kind of bogus research because benefactors pay them to do so.
I blame the movie Ghostbusters for this popular misconception that it is possible to earn a PhD in “parapsychology.” There is no such thing as “parapsychology.”
Here’s some accredited Ph.D. programs in Parasitology. Much more useful, IMHO.
Every Ph.D. that I’ve ever encountered who did parapsychology work had his degree in Psychology, and had published works on more mainstream topics in legitimate Psych journals.
A lot of work in testing for so called parapsychologic powers has been done at Duke. It would be interesting to examine the actual academic credentials of the folks with tenure there who did that work.
Why, right here on the Internet.
But really, it doesn’t take a genius, or much of an education for that matter, to set up a series of double blind studies and get only negative results. That’s what you can expect if you proceed with integrity.
Some people here seem to have an ‘interesting’ idea of what constitutes parapsychology. Maybe that’s due to popular culture in their own country, I’m not sure.
To say that one cannot teach or learn about parapsychology is bunkum and there are plenty of courses around. It’s not about reading tea leaves or about finding ghosts. Quite the opposite in fact.
Parapsychology is generally about testing phenomena and trying to find an explanation for them. This naturally entails debunking most of the myths and legends around. My own place of work allowed parapsychologists to do some work and is probably an excellent example of what the science is. London Underground has long had a reputation as a haunted place with specific stations and bits of tunnel being associated with certain symptoms. Parapsychologists went to those places and measured sound levels. In every ‘haunted’ place the subsonic noise levels were extremely high and they explained that this coupled with psychological factors was most likely what caused the staff to feel the heebie jeebies. The psychological factors involved being alone for long hours, it being late at night, it being underground/isolated from the rest of the world, stories circulating which ‘confirmed’ and validated feelings of fear and so on which all added to feelings of unease which caused ‘ghosts’ to be seen and heard.
There is nothing about this type of study which accords to a belief in the supernatural. In fact, a skeptical mind is a plus. Although perhaps it is different for study of the subject in other countries.
In the UK you should expect to be testing they whys and wherefores of ‘inexplicable’ happenings. Something like a physics degree would be a good place to start. Other science degrees would probably also be useful and ditto for engineering. Social psychology degrees would also be quite useful or anything where ‘group accord’ etc is studied.
But how in Yog-Sothoth’s name is that “parapsychology”?
Seems more like plain old garden variety psychology. A psychologist who studies why people get uneasy feelings in certain situations isn’t a parapsychologist but a psychologist.
What you’re talking about is just plain old scientific method. There isn’t any reason to attach the word “parapsychology” to it. There is nothing about the kind of investigation you describe which requires any special training or knowledge of anything but purely natural phenomena. Like you said, degrees in fields like physics or regular psychology are sufficient to investigate the kinds of unusual phenomena or alleged phenomena which get broadly categorized as “paranormal” or “supernatural.”
My own point was that there is no field of study or body of knowledge about so-called “paranormal” phenomena because no such thing has ever been shown to exist.
Maybe, as you said, there is a difference in how the word “parapsychologist” gets used on either side of the pond. In the US, it generally gets used to describe “ghostbusting” scammers and crackpots who write popular books about ESP. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of Americans who cannot distinguish between real science and pseudoscience. Anyone who buys himself a mail order Doctorate in Parapsychology will find plenty of people who will treat them as if they are legitimate scientists. Even the media plays right into this crap and treats such things as ghosts and psychics as if they are legitimate possibilities.
Yes. It’s the study of our psychology as it relates to the paranormal. Hence the name. Although it’s not just about psychology. Science is heavily involved which is why a good physics or engineering degree is useful. At work apparently the way the tunnels are structured affects how the air moves around and how sound works. An understanding of these things is essential otherwise you would just end up saying ‘Yeah, people get scared. Not sure why. Must be something weird’ rather than ‘X happens which causes Y. Y is unsettling to people because of Z. People get scared and this is why’.
If you are going to study something like ESP or whatever then psychology is more important although a good grasp of statistics would aslo be useful.
Possibly it’s different in your country if entertainers have appropriated the sound, I dunno. But it’s definitely not about trying to prove ghosts or religion or whatever.
I have to agree with Zelie because of what Zelie writes PLUS what Diogenes debates. You see, Diogenes, it might be plain ole physics, but who is bothering to delve into these unexplained phenomena? Not many. You’d probably be hard-pressed to get a grant, right?
I am skeptical, but I am not so closed minded to say all paranormal reports are bunk. I justify this by looking back along the timeline of science. Before the discovery of the properties of silicone, before Einstein, before the Wright Brothers, before Newton, before Copernicus, before Promethius…we thought eveything was either impossible or linked to the gods. And yet, despite the proponderance of evidence against those who dared to dream, it never squelched their dreams.
How can we be so bold as to scoff at the unknown when there is so much everyday, non-paranormal science we cannot explain. Like, how two people can eat the exact same diet and yet their bodies will metabolize (or not metabolize) that food in such different ways. Sure, you justify it with a superficial explanation as “differences in body chemistries”, but doctors have yet to unlock the secrets and fully explain why this is. Or, why some people have lived long, healthy lives smoking unfiltered cigarettes up to their dying day…well into their 90’s. I know one personally with a perfectly clear lung X-rays, no less! Go explain that!
- Jinx
I was musing on the subject of why the American posters on this forum seem to be against the study of parapsychology so much. I noted it on another thread in MPSIMS (I think).
It occurs to me that perhaps it really is just all about popular culture. The word has been misappropriated by entertainers in the USA. We have some ‘paranormal’ shows here (actually I think they are just American shows our networks have bought like they buy all the other cheap crap - sorry, I digress) but it’s not a major form of entertainment. Here, parapsychology isn’t much heard of but it is a valid area of scientific study.
It’s probably a language issue. People want to call out ‘engineers’ to fix the broken photocopier when a repairman would do. Here we like to buy our medicines from ‘chemists’. Popular misappropriation of terms and titles is nothing new really.
I’m pretty sure that many religions offer a phD and that some of their practioners are referred using the term ‘Doctor’.
Is most religion not parapshycology ?
Doctoral degrees in Divinity and the like are based on studies of systemetized theology and doctrine and confer either clerical credentials or credentials to teach the stuff. They do not involve study and/or testing of alleged supernatural phenomena, they involve the study of beliefs, which is different. Studying beliefs about karma is not the same thing as trying to study karma.
I was thinking along these lines, Zelie. How did the paranormal get linked to psychology, anyhow? Is it because of Jung’s interest in certain paranormal phenomena? Or, is it because of quacks who claim to bend spoons with their minds, and such?
Obviously, it has nothing to do with whether you loved your mother, or not! 
- Jinx
Both as a term and as a tradition of research the term was applied to, parapsychology significantly predates Jung, never mind Geller and his surrepticiously bent spoons. The historical sections of the Wikipedia entry on the subject are a reasonable intro to its origins. As a specific term, it was introduced in German by Max Dessoir in 1889: the passage where he did so is quoted on this page.
My impression is that the more serious 19th century psychic research in Germany was mainly conducted by medical doctors. There’s then a significant difference between their equivalents in the UK and the USA in that period: the British research was strongly tied to physics via people like Crookes and (in the early 20th century) Lodge, while in America it was more tied to psychology, notably by William James. It’s the latter tradition that adopts Dessoir’s German term in English and becomes exemplified in J.B. Rhine’s group at Duke. And thus into Seventies popular culture and then Ghostbusters.
While there were always some supporters of the notion in academic positions in the UK, particularly during the Geller fad of the Seventies, the main organisation in the British tradition - the SPR - was outside of academia. I believe it was only with the establishment of the Koestler Unit at Edinburgh in the Eighties that there was a major formal parapsychological research centre (controversially) set up in a British university. The model was the psychological one of Rhine’s at Duke and that was very much the background of its first professor.
While I’m not clear about why it’s happened - but, as a sceptic, I’m quite happy that it has - in academia the British tradition of parapsychology has partially evolved in this direction, despite the Duke-ish influence. For example, while he’s currently half the permanent staff at the Koestler, Peter Lamont does excellent work on the history of the subject that doesn’t assume that the reader necessarily buys into the reality of anything spooky. One could suggest that this historical research be labelled something other than “parapsychology”, but that’d be, well, arguing over labels rather than appreciating his work on its merits.
I don’t see any comparable trend in the US tradition.
Finally, I’ll note that this week’s eSkeptic includes a quote suggesting that there are probably no more than 10 full-time professional parapsychologists in the US. We’re talking about a tiny academic field, regardless of how one defines it.
In other words, one wouldn’t stand a ghost of chance trying to make it in this field? Hee-hee-hee…
But are you open-minded enough to say that SOME paranormal reports ARE bunk?
The “timeline of science” argument is a frequent one. Because mankind has been wrong before (“heavier than air flight? UM-possible!”), the assumption is made that it is wrong for everything else.
Sorry. Crackpot theories are no less crackpot theories even if you wish them to be true.
We must separate the likely from the unlikely and the almost assuredly impossible. We can do this more now than ever before, as the universe’s secrets are becoming better understood every day as our tools get refined. Perpetual motion? Highly unlikely. Acupuncture to cure muscle aches? Maybe.
I take issue with your statement “we thought everything was…linked to gods.” If by “we” you mean mankind, sure. If you mean “science”, no way. A postulate that “God did it” is by definition, not a scientific explanation, nor can it be tested. The scholars who linked diseases to gods did it out of religious reasons, and religion is resistant to scientific testing.
But my main point I saved for last. In the examples you gave – Wright Brothers, Newton, Einstein, etc. – note that evidence strengthened over time. This is a critical distinction between science and fantasy/pseudo-science, so critical I wish to say it again – for a valid scientific principle or discovery, evidence tends to strengthen over time.
This, then, is parapsychology’s big failure. The evidence is not strengthening over time. Sure, mountains of evidence have built up, but it’s either inconclusive or negative. Not one replicable experiment exists in over 150 years of research! Do you really think that Newton’s laws would be taken with the slightest seriousness if, every time we dropped an apple, it refused to fall to the earth as Newton said it would? Would we keep trying to drop pears, oranges and kiwis in the blind faith that eventually, one of them would hit the ground?
Some counter examples. The Cottingley Fairies – did the evidence strengthen over time? No, in spite of Sir Conan Doyle’s insistence, the sisters eventually revealed the hoax and his blind ignorance. No new fairy discoveries have come forward. BigFoot/Yeti – is more and better evidence being accumulated over hundreds of years? Talking to the dead? Has any better evidence been made available since the Fox Sisters’ admissions of fraud? Can any modern “psychic” pass a simple, double blind test of ability? Are more and better psychics being found or created? Is astrology being honed to such perfection that you can predict a child’s future before birth with high accuracy?
In contrast, although there were doubters and failures, the Wright Brothers persisted and their accomplishments soared as did their flying machines. Einstein proposed a strange, groundbreaking theory, to be sure. But it has passed all challenges and tests thrown at it so far, and has managed to expand our knowledge of the universe and make impressive predictions.
Open minds need direction or they are just garbage pits.