Ph.D. in Parapsychology?

[Musicat]

To answer the OP directly, this site has this to say:

There are a couple of questions my colleagues and I are often asked about Parapsychology. First of all, where can one take courses in parapsychology, and secondly, where can one earn a degree in parapsychology so as to enter the field? Both questions are a bit limited in the way they can be answered, since the resources and support of this field are severely limited.

The site continues to suggest courses in parapsychology, but lists no degree programs.

Also note the self-referential nature of that site, which mentions courses at a Rhine Research Center. (The site is hosted by rhine.org.) If that is the Rhine I think it is, it is the bunch of bozos who were easily and frequently fooled by Uri Geller and a few dozen spoonbending 6 year olds. Not exactly high academic praise.

Jeffery Mishlove appears to have a degree in parapsychology, awarded by himself.

To our knowledge, he possesses the only doctoral degree in “Parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited, American university. Of course, there have been many other American doctoral dissertations on parapsychological themes. However, those degrees were awarded in disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, education or anthropology. His degree was through the interdisciplinary, individual doctoral program that, unfortunately, is not available to students any longer at Berkeley.

Here’s an article about PP degrees.

Parapsychology Degrees–or a degree in Paranormal Studies–can open the door to many ghost hunting opportunities, and secure a formal career in this field.

<snip>

In most cases, universities offer parapsychology courses, but edge away from controversy by labeling them something else. Catch phrases include “consciousness” and “alternative psychology.”

Some colleges study the beliefs, causes, and attitudes towards psychic phenomena–including ghosts, “luck,” remote viewing, etc.–but usually in their departments of psychology, biology, or social sciences.

Ivy League colleges such as Harvard sometimes conduct parapsychology research, but it is not advertised and they do not offer degrees in the field.

If you choose one of these colleges, your formal major might be in physics, biology, psychology or engineering, or some other field. You may study the same topics–and at the same level–as someone in a parapsychology program, but the diploma will look more mainstream. This can be useful in career terms, if you don’t find a full-time career in the paranormal field.

(And, the fact is: Even with a parapsychology degree from a respected academic institution, you’re unlikely to find full-time research work in this field. Most full-time ghost hunters are self-employed, and have spent considerable time marketing themselves. That’s very different from the luxury of doing serious, full-time research in a respected scientific setting.)

zelie zelerton: You might find it interesting that one of my cites says UFOs are unworthy of paranormal research, but another (above) includes both UFOs and ghosts in the paranormal realm.

[Musicat]

@Dominic Mulligan

Is this really that hard to grasp? Academic parapsychology is the branch of psychology that studies why people believe in ghosts, and why “ghost” sightings occur (for example). It doesn’t aim to try to prove ghosts exist. It is attempting to prove that they don’t.

I believe a study of why people believe ANYTHING would be properly called psychology, “The science that deals with mental processes and behaviour.”

In contrast, parapsychology is the search for evidence of paranormal phenomena.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+psychology

http://skepdic.com/parapsy.html

If you disagree, then we merely have a definition problem.

[ralph124c]

@Musicat

To answer the OP directly, this site has this to say:The site continues to suggest courses in parapsychology, but lists no degree programs.

Also note the self-referential nature of that site, which mentions courses at a Rhine Research Center. (The site is hosted by rhine.org.) If that is the Rhine I think it is, it is the bunch of bozos who were easily and frequently fooled by Uri Geller and a few dozen spoonbending 6 year olds. Not exactly high academic praise.

Jeffery Mishlove appears to have a degree in parapsychology, awarded by himself.Here’s an article about PP degrees.zelie zelerton: You might find it interesting that one of my cites says UFOs are unworthy of paranormal research, but another (above) includes both UFOs and ghosts in the paranormal realm.

I am curious-the late Dr. J.B. Rhine was a respected scientists-did ANYTHING come from his 40+ years of work in Parapsychology? last i heard, his designated successor was canned for faking some research results.

[Musicat]

@ralph124c

I am curious-the late Dr. J.B. Rhine was a respected scientists-did ANYTHING come from his 40+ years of work in Parapsychology?

Why, yes, something did come from his work. He showed [ol][li]how easily some scientists can be hoodwinked by magicians,[]how easily staff can alter results if they don’t get what they want, and []if he couldn’t find any proof of the paranormal in 40 years, the chances are increasingly slim that anyone else will.[/ol][/li]
Not what you meant, perhaps, but I’d call that pretty useful.

[zelie_zelerton]

“So far, we don’t seem to be getting closer, not one bit, to a reproduceable experiment proving that any paranormal phenomena exists.”

Now you’re getting the idea!

You are starting from the premise that parapsychology sets out to prove the existence of ghosts etc. It does not, it sets out to explore the psychology of the paranormal. Getting results which show that ‘ghosts’ are actually the result of natural phenomenon which we can then explore and experiement more with is a positive result for parapsychologists. As I have said many, many times on this thread it is not about believing that x exists and then setting out to ‘prove’ that it does. That is what religion is for.

@ Musicat - Personally I wouldn’t have said that UFOs were ‘paranormal’. They are merely unidentified.

[Musicat]

@zelie zelerton

You are starting from the premise that parapsychology sets out to prove the existence of ghosts etc. It does not, it sets out to explore the psychology of the paranormal.

Your definition does not match any of the seven given by a simple google search.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@zelie zelerton

You are starting from the premise that parapsychology sets out to prove the existence of ghosts etc. It does not, it sets out to explore the psychology of the paranormal.

This phrase still doesn’t make any sense. there is no such thing as the “paranormal” and even if it did exist it wouldn’t have a “psychology.” Even people who study the psychology of believers in the supernatural are just plain old, regular psychologists. Studing the accustics of a subway sytem is just physics. Maybe “parapsychologists” could refer to people who set out to investigate and debunk supernatural claims, but that kind of investigation doesn’t necessarily involve any application of psychology. The “paranormal,” as such, cannot be studied because it doesn’t exist.

[Musicat]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The “paranormal,” as such, cannot be studied because it doesn’t exist.

Which, to sum up this thread, is why there is such a dearth of recipients of a PhD in the subject, wouldn’t you say?

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

I believe a study of why people believe ANYTHING would be properly called psychology, “The science that deals with mental processes and behaviour.”

You have a similar problem with educational psychology (or any other specialism of psychology)?

[Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party]

@Diogenes the Cynic

This phrase still doesn’t make any sense. there is no such thing as the “paranormal” and even if it did exist it wouldn’t have a “psychology.” Even people who study the psychology of believers in the supernatural are just plain old, regular psychologists. Studing the accustics of a subway sytem is just physics. Maybe “parapsychologists” could refer to people who set out to investigate and debunk supernatural claims, but that kind of investigation doesn’t necessarily involve any application of psychology. The “paranormal,” as such, cannot be studied because it doesn’t exist.

And people who study the theory of computation are just regular old mathematicians, those studying computer architectures are regular electronic engineers, those studying compiler design are just software engineers etc. etc.

Ergo, computer science as a discipline doesn’t exist.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Dominic Mulligan

And people who study the theory of computation are just regular old mathematicians, those studying computer architectures are regular electronic engineers, those studying compiler design are just software engineers etc. etc.

Ergo, computer science as a discipline doesn’t exist.

At least there actually are such things as computers. Those are applications of disciplines to a subject which objectively exists and can be studied. Talking about the “psychology of the paranormal” is like talking about the biology of smurfs.

[PoorYorick]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Talking about the “psychology of the paranormal” is like talking about the biology of smurfs.

It’s kind of already been done.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Alan_Smithee]

I for one would like a cite from Zellie or anyone else that parapsychology is ever used by anyone in academia in any country to refer to a branch of psychology relating to people’s beliefs in and fascination with the paranormal, as opposed to (and exclusive of) the supposed study of the paranormal itself. It’s not that I doubt that this is a possible use of the word, I just have never encountered it.

N.B., a given researcher using the word to refer to his own research into the psychology of belief is not helpful, unless he also excludes (or at least marginalizes) the study by others of paranormal phenomena from the scope of the term.

[Cervaise]

I also would like a cite. The earlier semantic distinction was sensible, and I defended the idea of the alternate terminology on those grounds, but that’s as far as I’ll go without some proof that such a narrowly defined psychological sub-discipline actually exists.

[bonzer]

@Alan Smithee

I for one would like a cite from Zellie or anyone else that parapsychology is ever used by anyone in academia in any country to refer to a branch of psychology relating to people’s beliefs in and fascination with the paranormal, as opposed to (and exclusive of) the supposed study of the paranormal itself. It’s not that I doubt that this is a possible use of the word, I just have never encountered it.

From the FAQ link on the Koestler Unit’s homepage (linked to by rayh in the second post in the thread):

What if psi doesn’t exist? Some people think that parapsychology is simply concerned with testing the psi hypothesis. However, we at the KPU feel that there’s much more to parapsychology than this. For example, through the pseudo-psi hypothesis we can examine aspects of deception and self-deception. We are also interested in beliefs about the paranormal, how they are justified, why people hold them, and their social and historical context.

Where I think zelie’s suggested picture of the field in Britain is wrong is in emphasising that that aspect makes up the majority of research being done under the title of parapsychology. I’d characterise it instead as a significant minority. Most of what British parapsychologists do - and this seems particularly true amongst their Ph.D. students - is still churn out tired, unconvincing and uninteresting variations on Ganzfeld studies and the like. In other words “testing the psi hypothesis” per usual.
(There may be a confusion here that there are prominant academic psychologists in the UK like Richard Wiseman and Chris French who are similarly interested in the psychology of paranormal beliefs and do excellent media-friendly work in the area, but who are unlikely to describe themselves as parasychologists. But there’s really little difference between what they do and what the aforementioned Peter Lamont does at the Koestler. As I suspect all three would readily admit.)

[TimeWinder]

@Jinx

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

I’ll be happy to offer you one, from the unaccredited TimeWinder University of Pseudoscience. It’ll be as good as any you can get elsewhere.

Don’t worry about defending the thesis, TUP doesn’t require you to actually show up – we have psychics who’ll tell us whether you know your stuff or not. They’re as good as any you can find elsewhere, too.

[bonzer]

To add to the above:

@Alan Smithee

N.B., a given researcher using the word to refer to his own research into the psychology of belief is not helpful, unless he also excludes (or at least marginalizes) the study by others of paranormal phenomena from the scope of the term.

There’s unlikely to be such a narrow usage.

[Alan_Smithee]

@bonzer

From the FAQ link on the Koestler Unit’s homepage (linked to by rayh in the second post in the thread)

And on the same page you find a (somewhat half-hearted, I’ll admit) defense of the “psi hypothesis” as (at least) a still-open question. As long as parapsychologists as a group continue to defend that position, the charge that parapsychology is bunk still stands.

That’s why I insisted on such a narrow usage. Show me at least one self-identified parapsychologist who isn’t only “also interested in beliefs about the paranormal,” but who actually believes that the question of the accuracy of those beliefs is settled, and that the beliefs are false. Or show me one parapsychologist who says that testing the psi hypothesis isn’t “real” parapsychology compared to what he does.

If you can’t, then how can you defend Zelie’s claim that the usage of the word parapsychology that includes attempts to prove the existence of ghosts is a “misappropriation” of the term and that anyone who lumps ghosthunting in with parapsychology is “quite mistaken”? For that matter, how can Zelie herself defend her claim?

[bonzer]

@Alan Smithee

If you can’t, then how can you defend Zelie’s claim that the usage of the word parapsychology that includes attempts to prove the existence of ghosts is a “misappropriation” of the term and that anyone who lumps ghosthunting in with parapsychology is “quite mistaken”?

I don’t defend it. If it’s not already obvious, I think that the term has been so variously defined over such a long period of time that I don’t think it helps anyone to insist on any narrow definition as being correct. And that includes zelie’s.