Epistemology
Psi phenomena present ways of knowing the world not described within the scientific cannon; clairvoyance indicates the ability to perceive things beyond the supposed boundaries of time (e.g. through precognition or retrocognition), and remote viewing indicates the ability to perceive things beyond the supposed boundaries of space. These ways of knowing do not align with the five senses central to experience, nor do they align with the scientific method central to reason. Experience and reason–empiricism and rationalism–serve as the crux of how we come to know things, which is a central exploration of epistemology.
So, how do we come to know things? Let’s dig into this question with a handy-dandy Venn diagram typical of a course on epistemology:
In this Venn diagram, “knowledge” is the most specific term and is a combination of the terms “truths” and “beliefs.” This symbolizes the notion that, if we know something, we must also believe that what we know is true. So, knowledge is thus derived from belief as much as it is derived from truth. However, not everything people believe to be true is, in fact, true. So, some beliefs remain just beliefs. Similarly, there are truths that are not believed: these remain truths.
In the center of the Venn diagram, we see the phrase “poorly justified true beliefs.” To understand what this refers to, let’s talk a bit more about what it means to know something: We might know something just by chance–“knowing” of this kind is unjustified; this “knowing” is a poorly justified “true belief”. A poorly justified true belief is not necessarily known. It does not live within the realm of what we have termed “knowledge.”
For example, let’s say you have personally experienced psi phenomena. You would have experiential evidence that these phenomena exist. In this hypothetical situation, you would most likely say to yourself, “I know these phenomena,” and you would believe this statement. Now, if you don’t consider experiential evidence to be strong enough data to justify the existence of psi phenomena, then these phenomena would live, in your mind, within the category of “poorly justified true beliefs.”
But, if you allow this experiential evidence to serve as a justification for the existence of psi phenomena, then you would incorporate them into your fund of knowledge. Knowledge is a justified true belief. It is belief that is true (per our reality) and is reasoned to be so.
Through these hypothetical situations, we see a question begin to take shape: What constitutes justification? Perception? Testimony? Reproducible scientific data? How might we transform psi phenomena from belief to true belief to knowledge?
Dr. Richard Mann (Dick) is a Professor Emeritus of psychology at the University of Michigan, where he has taught since 1964. His areas of interest range from social psychology to transpersonal psychology.
This question of how we should justify psi phenomena has not been explored in depth. Instead, the literature has focused on scientific explorations, ruminations, and criticisms. We have dived deeply before agreeing on the foundation of parapsychology: namely, how do we know what knowledge regarding psi phenomena looks like, and, subsequently, at what point can we say that we know these phenomena?
Dr. David Baker (DJB) is a professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan. He blends his two areas of study (philosophy and physics) to create courses centered around the metaphysics of physics, space and time, quantum physics, the philosophy of science, and more.
Because psi phenomena present ways of knowing the world not described within the scientific cannon, they challenge epistemology. If our understanding of the way in which we know things is incomplete, then any knowledge derived through this process of coming to know things might be challenged. We may need to upend our perception of reality for a new, more whole perception. When you observe the psi discourse from this perspective, it becomes very clear how ignorance of these phenomena is born and/or why one might want to denounce data supporting psi. Ignorance is safer, easier, and cleaner. Perhaps we are hiding in the deeper levels of parapsychological exploration purposefully, so as to stamp out the need to address said issues.
Metaphysics
Once we reach a consensus regarding the epistemology of psi phenomena, we can transition back into the realm of metaphysics. Metaphysics is essentially the exploration of questions regarding the nature of reality–these questions can’t necessarily be investigated in a laboratory setting (i.e., empirically), as they tend to be rather abstract. Here are a few examples: “Is there anything that must be true of absolutely everything that exists?,” “What is causation?,” and “What is ‘the self’?”
William Grey, a contributor to the Skeptical Inquirer and philosophy lecturer at the University of Queensland, considers the intersections of psi, epistemology, and metaphysics. In his article titled “Philosophy and the paranormal: Part I-The problem of ‘psi’,” Grey argues, “It is an open question whether there are any objectively real paranormal phenomena that provide the basis for parapsychological experiences.” Here, the question shifts from “How do we come to know things?” to “What composes reality?” A statement like this implies that we must have empirical evidence for psi phenomena–experiential evidence won’t cut it.
This is not to say that people who have experienced these phenomena are delusional or fraudulent (at least, not in most cases). Rather, their experiences alone do not provide strong enough evidence to allow the incorporation of psi phenomena into a universal or “objective” reality. These phenomena only exist within the reality of an individual who has had said experiences, and this is not the level of reality that metaphysics deals with.
The word paranormal can be broken into its prefix, “para,” and its root word, “normal.” “Para” means “beyond” or “outside of,” and “normal” means “conforming to the standard or the common type.” So “paranormal” refers to events or phenomena that do not align with the norms of our reality.
I highlight this in light of Grey’s claim that “paranormal phenomena are typically characterized by exclusion; that is, they comprise what does not fit into the accepted categories we use when we try to explain what happens in the world.” These paranormal phenomena are characterized by an exclusion from the "norm" as well as an exclusion from further scientific investigation (at least sans judgement)–they elude western science and scientists. But what if they came to fit within these “accepted categories?” What might reality look like?
Probably more complex, but hopefully more complete. Psi phenomena challenge our understanding of the dimensions that compose our shared reality: namely, they disable the restrictions of space and the linearity of time. Psi phenomena also suggest the existence of an additional force (beyond gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) which we have yet to uncover. Together, these radical concepts would disrupt the entire body of western science. But–should psi phenomena be “justified true beliefs”–they will also give rise to a more unified understanding of the world. Perhaps they will allow us to approach unanswered metaphysical questions (like those mentioned at the beginning of this rumination) in an entirely new and more effective way.
Of course, these phenomena may not exist; psi phenomena may not be “justified true beliefs.” Presently, we are not able to address this with certainty one way or the other. To quote Ernest Sosa’s Epistemology: “Consider, moreover, the need to explain the skeptic’s premise–that one does not know oneself to be radically misled, and so on–is as plausible as it is. That requirement must be balanced by an equally relevant and stringent requirement: namely, that one explain how that premise is as implausible as it is.” Here, Sosa, a professor of philosophy at Rutgers University, highlights the import of maintaining an open mind when approaching unanswered questions. The advocate must have good reason as to why their belief is reality, and the counter-advocate must have good reason as to why this same belief is implausible. As a society, we must consider balancing between these two points–between skepticism and openness to the possibility that psi phenomena exist. If we cannot achieve this balance, then we allow either delusion or ignorance.
OPENNESS
“Dogmatic skeptics often repeat the slogan that ‘extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.’ But…telepathy [is] not extraordinary…Most people have experienced [it]. From this point of view, the skeptics’claim is extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence that most people are deluded about their own experience?”
– Rupert Sheldrake
From Arguing Science
Skepticism
“Skeptics are not 'crusaders…fighting against infidels and heretics.' We’re critical thinkers applying science and reason to any and all claims.”
"Skepticism is inherent to the scientific process itself."
– Michael Shermer
From Arguing Science
-
As the journal of the Committee of Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), the Skeptical Inquirer is dedicated to the exploration and critical evaluation of “all manner of controversial and extraordinary claims”. Since its inception in 1976, CSI’s mission has been “to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” Names associated with the committee include Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Ray Hyman, and James Randi.