情報源 : 動画(31:53)

Experimental Evidence for Parapsychological Phenomena with Etzel Cardeña (4K Reboot)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1F9kHYK0nM

AI

超心理学の証拠と批判

この対談は、超心理学の実験的証拠と、それに対する心理学界の懐疑論について論じています。エドセル・カルデニャ教授は、超心理学における千以上の実験が一貫した証拠を示しており、その効果量は心理学の他の複雑な分野と同等であると主張します。

彼は、懐疑派が事前の信念に基づいて証拠を無視すること、そしてその傲慢さを批判しています。対談では、超心理学に対する抵抗の歴史と、分野内の過度の主張を避ける必要性についても触れられています。

AI

要約書：「超心理学：実験的証拠と批判」

このブリーフィングドキュメントは、ジェフリー・ミシュラブとの対談「Thinking Allowed」におけるエドセル・カルデニャ教授の発言に基づき、超心理学の実験的証拠、その受容に対する抵抗、および分野内および外部のドグマ的姿勢について主要なテーマと重要な事実をレビューする。

1. 超心理学の実験的証拠の強さ

カルデニャ教授は、超心理学の実験的証拠が他の心理学分野と比較して決して劣るものではないと主張する。

広範な研究: 教授の研究は、「量子力学的ランダムイベントジェネレーターから遠隔視まで、12種類ほどの異なる実験パラダイムに及ぶ、1000件を超える実験」を統合しており、「すべてが同じ方向を指し示す一貫した証拠を提供している」と述べている。(0:02:18)

他の心理学分野との比較: 超心理学のデータは、「より複雑なもの、行動の分析、誰が暴力的な行動をするか、人がどのように反応するか、といったこと、つまり性格心理学、社会心理学、臨床心理学のようなもの」と比較して、「結果ははるかに同等」であるとしている。(0:06:13)

医療分野との比較: カルデニャは、アメリカ統計学会の元会長である統計学者のジェシカ・ウッツが、「アスピリンが心臓病の軽減に役立つという考えを支持するデータは、超感覚的知覚のデータよりも弱い」と主張していることを引用し、これを「正しい」と認めている。(0:06:44) 彼は、超心理学的現象はアスピリンの代替薬と同程度の「効果量」を持ち、「同程度に予測可能」であると述べている。(0:07:13)

2. 超心理学の受容に対する抵抗と根底にある偏見 長年にわたる証拠の蓄積にもかかわらず、超心理学への受容は依然として低い。カルデニャ教授はこの抵抗の原因について考察している。

歴史的サイクルと懐疑論の正当性: 受容度は「循環的に」推移しており、ラインの時代には受容度が高かったが、1980年代から1990年代は低迷したという。(0:08:27) また、懐疑的な心理学者が存在する「正当な理由」として、過去に「クレバー・ハンス」のような「並外れた偉業が、人々が考えていたようなものではないと判明した歴史」があることを挙げている。(0:09:24)

「並外れた主張には並外れた証拠が必要」: カルデニャは、このフレーズが「合理的な懐疑論者」であったマルチェロ・トルッチによって考案されたものであり、「彼は実際には合理的な超心理学のかなり支持者であった」と説明している。(0:10:32) トルッチは、データを「先入観なく」見るグループを期待していたが、実際には「その意味で研究を破壊したがる党派的で極端な党派グループ」を発見したため、ZYCOPを辞任したと述べられている。(0:10:47)

学者の傲慢さと科学的原則からの逸脱: カルデニャは、学術界に存在する「傲慢さ」が問題であると指摘し、「私は学者だから、他の人よりも賢いのだ」という感覚があるため、自分の専門外の分野についても「判断を下すことができる」と考えていると述べている。(0:13:21) 彼は、最近「アメリカン・サイコロジスト」誌に掲載された、自身の論文に対する懐疑論者からの反論が拒否されたことについて言及し、「彼らは実験的証拠を見る必要すらない、なぜなら彼らはあらかじめすべてが不可能だと知っているからだ」という立場は、「科学の根本的な原則に反する」と批判している。(0:14:57) 彼は、懐疑論者たちが「物理学のいくつかの原則に反するから、これは不可能だ」と主張しているにもかかわらず、「彼らは物理学者ではない」と強調している。(0:16:43) カルデニャは、このような論文が査読付き科学誌に掲載されたのは「政治的な理由」があると考えている。(0:19:09)

3. ドグマと超心理学の未来

カルデニャは、超心理学に関する議論における両極端なドグマ的姿勢を批判し、建設的なアプローチを提唱している。

懐疑論者のレトリック: 懐疑論者は「実際の事実を持たないときにレトリックを使う」と述べ、彼らの主要な武器は「嘲笑」であり、研究者を「存在から笑い飛ばしたがる」と指摘している。(0:22:42)

超心理学者の課題: 超心理学者は、「これらの現象は珍しいものではない」というメッセージを「繰り返して伝える」ことに長けていないと述べている。(0:23:22) 彼は、世界中の調査で大多数の人々がこれらの現象を報告しており、「精神衛生上の問題によって報告されているわけではない」とし、「非常に優秀な科学者や、ほぼ30人以上のノーベル賞受賞者を含む、世界中の人々によって報告されている」と強調している。(0:23:22)

ドグマ的な両極端の批判: カルデニャは、「これが不可能だと言う独断家」と、「それがどのように機能するかを正確に知っていると言う独断家」の両方を批判している。(0:24:38) 彼は、超心理学的現象は「非常に制御が難しい」ものであり、実験室で「拘束」すると「小さな効果」しか得られないと述べている。(0:26:21)

「迷信の増大」という懸念への対応: 一部の懐疑論者が「迷信の増大」を懸念していることについて、カルデニャは、一般メディアで超心理学について聞いたことを極端に解釈する人々は「ごく少数派」であり、ほとんどの超心理学者は「自己批判的で、他者にも批判的であり、責任感がある」と主張している。(0:27:13)

継続的な研究の必要性: 結論として、カルデニャは「データは何かを明確に確立している」と述べ、「それが何であるか、そしてそれを最大限に活用する方法をよりよく理解するために、研究を続ける必要がある」と強調している。(0:29:43)

このブリーフィングは、超心理学が無視できない科学的証拠を持つ分野であること、しかし学術的偏見やドグマ的姿勢によってその受容が妨げられていることを示している。教授は、オープンな探求と厳密な方法論を通じて、この分野の理解が進むことを期待している。

AI

タイムライン

数十年前から100年以上前: 超心理学のデータが蓄積され始める。

20世紀半ば (ラインの時代): 超心理学が比較的広く受け入れられる。

1980年代～1990年代: 超心理学にとって厳しい時代となり、受け入れが低迷する。

（時期不明）: エドセル・カルデーニャが『American Psychologist』誌に実験的証拠を好意的に評価する記事を掲載。これは超心理学に対する心理学者間の新たな時代の始まりとなる可能性があるとジェフリー・ミシュラブは示唆。

（カルデーニャの記事掲載後まもなく）: カルデーニャの記事に対して懐疑論者からの反論が『American Psychologist』誌に掲載される。

（カルデーニャの記事への反論掲載後まもなく）: カルデーニャがその反論に対する返答の論文を執筆し、ジャーナルに提出するも、掲載が拒否される。

現在: 超心理学に対する受け入れが再び増加傾向にある可能性がある。しかし、カルデーニャは歴史的パターンから見て、受け入れと拒絶は周期的に繰り返されると考えている。

AI

登場人物

ジェフリー・ミシュラブ (Jeffrey Mishlove):

• 心理学者であり、番組「Thinking Allowed」の司会者。
• 超心理学に関する実験的証拠の探求に興味を持ち、エドセル・カルデーニャとの対談を企画。
• ウィリアム・ジェイムズを最も好きな心理学者として挙げている。

エドセル・カルデーニャ (Edsel Cardena):

• スウェーデンのルンド大学の心理学教授。
• 『Journal of Parapsychology』の編集者。
• 約1年前に『American Psychologist』誌に超心理学の実験的証拠を好意的に評価する記事を掲載した。
• 超心理学の研究に対する懐疑論者、特にドグマ的な反論に対して批判的な見解を持っている。
• 科学における傲慢さを批判し、学術界における盲点と偏見について言及している。

B.F. スキナー (B.F. Skinner):

• 行動主義心理学者。
• カルデーニャが、予測可能な行動の法則を見出す上で成功した例として挙げている（スキナー箱の実験）。

ジェシカ・ウッツ (Jessica Utz):

• 統計学者であり、アメリカ統計学会の元会長。
• 超心理学のデータが、アスピリンが心臓病の予防に役立つというデータよりも強力であると主張した人物として言及されている。

J.B. ライン (J.B. Rhine):

• 20世紀半ばに超心理学が比較的受け入れられていた「ラインの時代」の中心人物として間接的に言及されている。

クレバー・ハンス (Clever Hans):

• 数学ができるように見えた馬。
• 超心理学の「超常現象」に対する懐疑的な見方の正当な理由の例として挙げられている。実際には、馬は飼い主の非言語的な手がかりに反応していたことが判明した。

ペッツェル (Petzl):

• クレバー・ハンスの事例を調査した研究者の一人として言及されている（記憶が曖昧）。

マルチェロ・トルッツィ (Marcello Truzzi):

• 「並外れた主張には並外れた証拠が必要である (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof)」というフレーズを考案した人物。
• カルデーニャによると、彼は「合理的な懐疑論者」であり、超心理学の「合理的な擁護者」であった。
• ドグマ的に超心理学に反対する態度に反発し、ZYCOPを辞任した。

ウィリアム・ジェイムズ (William James):

• 心理学者。
• マルチェロ・トルッツィと同様に、「合理的な代替説明を排除した後にのみ、超常現象を検討すべき」という考え方を提唱していた人物として言及されている。ミシュラブのお気に入りの心理学者。

レバー (Reber):

• カルデーニャの記事に対して『American Psychologist』誌に反論を掲載した心理学者の一人。
• 超心理学に批判的な著作は以前にないようである。
• 物理学の知識がないにもかかわらず、物理学の原理に反するという理由で超心理現象の不可能性を主張したことでカルデーニャに批判されている。

ジム・アルコック (Jim Alcock):

• カルデーニャの記事に対して『American Psychologist』誌に反論を掲載した心理学者の一人。
• キャリアのほとんどを超心理学の批判に費やしてきた人物。
• 物理学の知識がないにもかかわらず、物理学の原理に反するという理由で超心理現象の不可能性を主張したことでカルデーニャに強く批判されている。
• カルデーニャは、アルコックが考えを変えることはないだろうと述べている。

クーパティーノの聖ヨゼフ (St. Joseph of Cupertino):

• 稀な超常現象の報告の歴史的例として言及されている。

** D.D. ヒューム (D.D. Hume)**:

• 稀な超常現象の報告の歴史的例として言及されている。

アントン・チェーホフ (Anton Chekhov):

• ロシアの作家。
• カルデーニャが「全てを知っていると考える者は皆、詐欺師か馬鹿である」という姿勢の例として挙げている。

パスカル (Pascal):

• 「無知の球体」の概念で間接的に言及されている。知識が増えるにつれて、知らないことの範囲も広がるという考え方。

文字起こし

Thinking Allowed, conversations on the leading edge of knowledge and discovery, with psychologist Jeffrey Mishlove. Hello and welcome. (0:01:41)

I'm Jeffrey Mishlove. Today we'll be exploring the experimental evidence for parapsychology. With me is Professor Edsel Cardena, who is a professor of psychology at Lund University in Sweden. He is also the editor of the Journal of Parapsychology and recently, about a year ago, published an article in the American Psychologist, the flagship publication of the American Psychological Association, which was a favorable review of the experimental evidence. Now, I'll switch over to the internet video. (0:02:18)

We're talking about the number of experiments overall that were incorporated into your study, well over a thousand, as I recall. And also, we're talking about a dozen or so different types of experimental paradigms, ranging from quantum mechanical random event generators to remote viewing, all of them providing consistent evidence pointing in the same direction. Yes, and one of the things that I explain to people when they sometimes think that if they see that the study does not replicate the finding, they assume that there is nothing to it, I just show them an analysis of other areas that are reasonable, expectable, that people assume don't happen. (0:03:29)

One of the ones I use, for instance, is to look at whether mindfulness, the practice of mindfulness, decreases the cortisol levels. Cortisol is related to stress. And I think most people, lay people, expert people, would assume, oh yes, if you do mindfulness, you will become more calm, and of course your cortisol levels will go down. And I found a meta-analysis, not even looking for it, just almost randomly, and you find that some studies don't show any effect whatsoever, and a few do. (0:04:04)

And the overall meta-analysis shows a small effect, but that happens in all of psychology, or in almost all of psychology. I would say simple perceptual phenomena, probably they are very robust. But one false assumption is that in psychology, we can have the same kind of predictability that we have in the hard sciences, where you end up dealing with non-sentient objects. (0:04:31)

If you deal with sentient beings, and so here I'm including non-human beings, then you get... things get a lot more interesting, get a lot more chaotic, you have many variables interacting with each other, interacting to you as an experimenter, alongside with a quite a bit of randomness that could occur. So it should not be expectable that you are going to find some very strong effects, unless you do something rather strange like Skinner did. I think B.F. Skinner was very successful, partly because what he did was to say, well, we have predictable loss of behavior with animals, sometimes even with humans, and if we put it in a Skinner box or something, this is what they will do. (0:05:20)

They will end up pressing with their paw the number of times, depending with the kind of reinforcement schedule they have. That is true, that is the only thing they can do. If there is no other creature that they can play, or bite, or fight, or procreate, or do whatever else, that's what they do, because they have nothing else to do. (0:05:39)

---

But if you put a non-human being, a non-human animal, outside of a Skinner box in their actual environment, then things become a lot less predictable. What you're saying is that the data of parapsychology, in terms of its overall strength, is comparable to other perceptual studies with humans. Is that correct? Not so much perceptual. Actually, I was saying perceptual psychology, very simple perception, can have robust effects. (0:06:13)

You know, the loss of whether you increase the intensity of a stimulus, how much that affects your experience, that is, you can quantify it very clearly. But when you get something more complex, the analysis of behavior, the analysis of who is going to do violent behavior, of how a person is going to react, things of that sort, more personality psychology, social psychology, clinical psychology, then the results are a lot more comparable. (0:06:44)

I see. Well, I know the statistician Jessica Utz, former president of the American Statistical Association, argues that the data in favor of the notion that taking aspirin helps reduce heart disease is weaker than the data for extrasensory perception. That is correct, although aspirin recently has not had good press. Now, people are questioning whether aspirin is that good. (0:07:13)

But there are a number of other medications that you could use instead of aspirin that have the same sorts of effects, and for which parapsychological phenomena could be shown to have stronger effects, and be more reliable, far from completely reliable as far as being able to predict, but have about the same kind of effect sizes, be as predictable as psychophenomena. Yet, even though this data has been accumulating for decades, in fact, I think it's probably fair to say for well over 100 years at this point, the resistance to accepting the data is still relatively high, although I tend to think your article potentially marks the beginning of a new era, at least among psychologists. (0:08:10)

Let's hope. I am not as optimistic. At the same time, I would say that perhaps there is a bit of an opening. But the way I look at history, looking at big patterns, is that you get perhaps a bit more acceptance, and then a bit less acceptance, and then that it goes cyclically. (0:08:27)

So you ended up having quite a bit of acceptance at the time of the Rhine era, the middle of the 20th century, then that was becoming fairly good, then 80s or 90s were not good times for perhaps psychology. Then people thought, well, maybe there is nothing to it. And now I think the curve has turned. (0:08:49)

There may be a bit more acceptance. Now, there are a number of reasons why this may be the case. Some, I think, far more acceptable than others. And I think one can also need to understand why some people may be reluctant to accept it. I think in one case, the one where I think some psychologists have a reason to be skeptical, is that they have a history of knowing that sometimes extraordinary feats did not turn out to be the way that people thought they were going to be. (0:09:24)

So for instance, in the case of Clever Hans, the horse that seemed to be able to do mathematics. I don't remember if it was Petzl or one researcher went to look at it, and it looked like what he was responding to was not to mathematical calculations, but to unobtrusive nonverbal behaviors of his owner. So psychology knows that sometimes things are exaggerated or that things turn out not to be, that there are very subtle nonverbal cues that may affect the person. (0:10:01)

So I think all of that is completely defensible, completely respectable, that it is fine to think that one must look at a number of different possible explanations before one starts positing that there are side phenomena. But by the way, this is nothing new. I had previously, and I have mentioned repeatedly, that when people say exceptional claims require exceptional proof, that people assume, oh, this discards parapsychology. (0:10:32)

Well, no. This, that was a phrase that was coined by Marcello Trutzi, who was supposed to be a reasonable skeptic, but I think he was actually fairly much a defender of reasonable parapsychology. (0:10:47)

---

Of saying you cannot be dogmatically against it, and he resigned ZYCOP because he found out that instead of having a group of people who would just look at the data clean, skeptical meaning, not having an a priori assumption and deal with it, they found that what he had was partisan, hyper-partisan group of people who just wanted to destroy research in that sense. But, you know, that was Trutzi, but I just recently found out that William James, I know you like William James, he's my favorite psychologist as well, that William James had written exactly the same thing, that one should only entertain side phenomena after discarding reasonable alternative explanations. (0:11:38)

Well, I think it's especially true because psychologists are very knowledgeable about all of the forms of error and folly that human beings are susceptible to. Except their own. I wrote a review of a book, and you are interested, I can send it to you. And the title of the review was, Do As I Say, Not As I Do. And it is a review of a book by people who are saying, well, a couple of authors who were saying we are going to teach students to be critical thinkers. (0:12:25)

And just start with the book and there are a number of principles that are very reasonable. You should always look at the original research. You should look at more than one source of evidence. A number of things that I would say are absolutely true. And then you get to their chapter on perhaps psychology, and they don't follow any of the principles that they had described originally. (0:12:50)

And there they just give free reign to their prejudices and essentially say, well, this is irrational. This is something that cannot be thought of as pursuable by honorable, decent scientists. So forget about it. And it is, you are seeing the blind spot on other people and you are not seeing this enormous mask in front of you. (0:13:21)

And I would say that's something that pertains to all of us as researchers and as human beings. But there is something about academics, I think, that is particularly poisonous. And that is a level of arrogance that you don't find in all the professions, or at least in most of the professions. And that is a sense of, well, I'm an academic, so I'm more intelligent than others. (0:13:48)

And I can pass judgment on a number of things, even if it's not my area, even if I haven't read on it. I am really brighter than thou. And that's problematic. You know, usually what I think about, I love being an academic, but I do not think that we have anything special and that we are more intelligent. Certainly when I get the worker who comes to paint my home, and he starts doing things, I realize what a stupid person I am to do a number of practical things, how much implicit and explicit knowledge he has, and how bright he is, because he's a particularly good worker. (0:14:29)

But I do not think that most, let's say, manual workers tend to think that they are better than everybody else. But academics, we don't have much power, but we think we are smarter than everybody else. And so we give free reign to whatever dislikes we have and just coat them with the notion that what we're doing is, of course, rational and the obvious thing to do. (0:14:57)

Well, recently, the American psychologist, I gather, published a response to your article from some skeptics, and basically they took the tact that they don't even need to look at the experimental evidence, because they know in advance that all of this is impossible. Yes, correct. And I wrote a response, a commentary to their paper, which I just found out two days ago or so was rejected by the journal. (0:15:27)

And mostly my tact was to say, well, if you start with that notion, you're really going against a fundamental principle of science, which is you look at the evidence, regardless of your a priori beliefs and expectations. If you already think you know what is and is not possible, you are not going to advance. (0:16:00)

And that is exactly the same stance that inquisitors and all the people like that have had for centuries. They assumed, not talking about science, but talking about whichever religion it may be, that if you are dogmatic, you already know what it is. Now, that is problematic as a matter of epistemology. The second point, which makes it even worse, is that these two people, Rever and Jim Alcock, Rever is not, hadn't published, as far as I know, anything before critical of parapsychology, but James Alcock had made most of his career just being a critic of parapsychology. (0:16:43)

If you think what they are doing is that this is impossible because it goes against a number of principles in physics. Now, they are not physicists. To just mention the obvious, they are not physicists. They do not have any advanced degree on it. I would distrust anyone who will come to me and say, well, I haven't done any research on neurology, but the operation that has been recommended to release the brain tumor you may have, I don't, I hope, but, well, how do you know? Do you have studies in neurosurgery? No, I don't, but I know it is impossible. We would laugh at that. (0:17:34)

And this is something that they feel, they, in a sense, they have the nerve to assume that they can speak authoritatively on a field that is not theirs. (0:17:41)

---

Now, I did quote in my original paper physicists, but what I said is there are a number of eminent physicists who believe that there is the possibility, or maybe even the likelihood, that psychophenomena are acceptable. I did not say this is the last, the final word, because I'm not a physicist, and I think even if I were a physicist, I would not dare to do that. (0:18:07)

Probably, you know, you're a psychologist, and in whatever area you're doing, I think the more I know about it, to quote to an extent Socrates, the less I know, I know what I know, you know, the more you realize how many things you actually do not know, how complicated the matters are, and that is something that should be as well elementary and obvious. (0:18:36)

But somehow, in some way, the American psychologist, in its wisdom, decided to publish a paper in which a couple of psychologists say this is impossible, going against history of science, in which we know that in the past many people have said the same, only to find out that a few years later, somebody came up with something they considered impossible, that changed the idea of science, that a couple of people would dare say that, and about a field that they have no expertise on. (0:19:09)

You know, it seems to me understandable that Alcock and Reber would make that claim, but what is really extraordinary is that they could get it published in a scientific, a refereed scientific journal. Yes it is, but I think there is a political reason behind this. First, I have to say, when I submitted my manuscript to the American psychologist, in a sense it was like thinking, yes of course they are not going to accept it, it is about psychophenomena, I'm trying to be reasonable, I'm trying to give voice to what I would consider reasonable criticisms, I'm trying to address them, but of course they're going to reject it right away. (0:19:55)

When they didn't, I was surprised. Then came more than a year of process of going through revisions and trying to address what they wanted me to do without adding any more words. It was the most difficult review process. I have published more than 300 papers, this was easily the most difficult one, but they published it and I was very appreciative because I thought this shows a lot of guts. (0:20:34)

One should not even have to say it needs guts, one should say if there is a good article it should be published, regardless of what the conclusions are. But I said in any case realistically that takes guts, good that they did it. But I think that at the end they somehow came to the notion that they had to give the other side, quote-unquote, a voice. (0:20:54)

It's the same kind of argument that I am an American citizen, as you are, and you hear all the time that somebody in the politics in the United States can say whatever and then somebody criticizes and you have to somehow listen, give another counter view, even if the counter view may not be reasonable or based on actual facts or anything like that. (0:21:27)

So I think that's what explains why their paper was published. But in a sense I have written now a response to their paper where I said well in some ways parapsychologists should celebrate their response because if this is what they have to report, the meta-analysis, if what they have is I'm not going to look at the data, I'm really scared of it, I'm not going to look at this, it's impossible, and I won't say why it is except I will talk about physics that I do not know anything about because it's not my area. If that is what they come up with, well then the emperor is less than naked. (0:22:10)

I have to agree with you there. I think that any objective person looking at it in terms of scientific methodology would have to conclude that this is the weakest of all possible rebuttals. (0:22:24)

---

Yes, yes. It is in a sense you have already given up on the fight before having it. Now they may believe that they are being really smart by using it, they talk about using a rhetorical device, but you use rhetoric when you do not have actual facts. In effect, that's what these particular skeptics have been doing for a long time. (0:22:50)

I've often thought their major weapon is the horse laugh that, you know, when a researcher comes up with data they just want to laugh them out of existence. Yes, and you are right, and some of them are very aggressive and they make fun and ridicule researchers. And I think in a sense what parapsychologists have not been as good at doing is to do something like what they do, but with what the data say. (0:23:22)

So at having a repeated message, for example, to say, yes, these are not phenomena that are unusual. We know that the majority of people in surveys all over the world report this phenomena. Yes, this is not something reported by mental health issues. This is reported by people all over the world, including very bright scientists and more than almost 30 Nobel Prize winners. (0:23:49)

Yes, this is something that is happening all the time and repeated and repeated and repeated. And in a sense, as much as possible, disregard what the critics are saying, sort of to come up with a counter-narrative. Because the narrative is there. It is ridicule. It is saying this is impossible. This is just superstition and so on. (0:24:17)

That is well established. They are not going to change. We're not going to change. I don't think there is anything that any of us could do to have an alcohol change his mind. That is not going to happen. So forget about speaking to him and speak to the more general group of scientists who are open to it and talk about the strengths and weaknesses. (0:24:38)

One should also speak about the weaknesses and the ways in which some people who speak about parapsychology are harming it. Because the way I see it, the dogmatics who say this is impossible are wrong. Wrong in the sense that reality is a lot more complex. There is no one who knows how it works. Unless there's a god or goddess and I haven't met him or her. (0:25:04)

And even if there's a gore in each one of us of that, well let me see if I can find it anywhere. But that's not how it works. I think there is no one who can say that. Yet there is a group that believes that. And on the other hand there are dogmatics who say we know how it works. We know how parapsychology is about. (0:25:32)

And we have very strong principles so that we know. And here I'm going to, I'm sure, lose some members of your audience. There are some people who may say well there is this secret and if you for instance want something, just you must want it strong enough, it is going to happen. (0:25:52)

And when you oversimplify matters, people can laugh at you and people should laugh at you. Because when I have some kind of argument like that and I have people I have loved who have said similar things, I say how can you say that you are somehow creating your reality and you are responsible for it in the overall sense when we have children, nowadays babies dying of thirst, of hunger, being massacred, being raped, being killed. (0:26:21)

Do they? Did they choose that reality? Was there something wrong in their karma? I don't see it at that. And that is also, I think, something that needs to be avoided. Mostly what we have in the research is these things happen. Psyphenomena happen. They are very difficult to control and when we put them, when we restrain them, when we straitjacket them in a lab, what we have are small effects. (0:26:58)

Not more than that. Every so often you may have reports like St. Joseph of Cupertino, D.D. Hume and so on, but those are once every century. Most things are just very uncontrollable and small effects. And I think that is what is real. Neither one extreme nor the other. (0:27:13)

---

It seems to me that many of these skeptics, what they're really concerned about is what they call the rising tide of superstition. That they look out at society and they see a lot of irrationality and they assume that parapsychology is somehow fueling this irrationality. And you're suggesting that yes, that may be true to a certain extent, that there's an element of the population that takes what they hear in popular media about parapsychology and they run with it to such an extreme that it's distorted. (0:27:57)

Yes, that is true. But I would say that is very much the minority of people who do parapsychology. I think most people that I know who are doing work are self-critical, critical of others. They are responsible. There is always a risk. But I would say the same thing occurs with, for example, medicine or psychotherapy. You will find out that there are physicians, therapists, engineers who know what they are doing. (0:28:23)

And then there are some individuals who either wittingly or not end up exaggerating or doing things that are not defensible. So that happens. But one needs to distinguish between that and people who are doing their job well. And I would say that the majority of parapsychologists are doing things carefully and they're doing it well. (0:28:49)

And there is a minority who are exaggerating. But in a sense, those people in the extreme, the dogmatics of this is impossible and the dogmatics of yes, I know exactly how it works, are one and the same. I mean, you know, my posture is I use people like Anton Chekhov and some of those writers who basically say, well, anybody who thinks they know everything is just a charlatan or an idiot because we don't. And as you grow up and as you even become more expert on whichever area you're doing, you find out that you really have greater mysteries, that you understand a bit more and at the same time understand how much you do not understand. (0:29:31)

So that if you look at Pascal's spheres of ignorance, your knowledge increases the same way that your awareness of how much you do not know increases. Well, Atul Kardena, thank you so much for this overview. I think your work is very important. And at this point, I think maybe the best thing to say is that the data unequivocally establishes that something's going on and we have to continue to research to understand better what it is and how to make the best use of it, if at all. (0:30:12)

Absolutely. A secular amen to that.

(2025-07-06)