Supporters and practitioners insist that parapsychology is a valid scientific enterprise, but those involved in more mainstream fields often have little more than derision for it. Parapsychologists act like they are involved in science, but they exhibit few of the standard characteristics in terms of how science operates.

To many, parapsychology qualifies as a legitimate science. After all, the Parapsychological Association has been accepted as an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (something which happened in 1969 through the efforts of AAAS president Margaret Meade, a big believer in psychic powers). There are also several professional bodies of parapsychologists that ostensibly serve to monitor research and ensure that high standards are met.

Source: http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/science.htm

There are many scientific publications available at Cognitive Sciences Laboratories which is part of the Laboratories for Fundamental Research.

For over 20 years, the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory has been the center for government-sponsored parapsychology research in support of its intelligence program most recently known as STAR GATE.

Two universities in the United States currently have academic parapsychology laboratories. The Division of Perceptual Studies, a unit at the University of Virginia's Department of Psychiatric Medicine, studies the possibility of survival of consciousness after bodily death, near-death experiences, and out-of-body experiences. The University of Arizona's Veritas Laboratory conducts laboratory investigations of mediums. Several private institutions, including the Institute of Noetic Sciences, conduct and promote parapsychological research.

Suggested questions which can be tagged with parapsychology:

  • Again, neither of those questions you suggest is about parapsychology. You could probably find better candidates, but if you do, consider making your argument explicitly with your own words rather than implying it with quotes. Jun 17 '14 at 18:39

We previously had a parapsychology tag. However it was removed. The consensus at the time was that parapsychology was pseudo-scientific and therefore did not belong on this site. I respect the group decision in this regard.

As a side point, my preference would be to have a parapsychology tag. This is not because I believe in ESP. Rather, I think that a valuable role of this site is to provide scientific answers to common questions asked by the public. So for example, a reasoned scientific evaluation of the evidence against ESP might be useful.

  • 1
    i agree. that something is a pseudo-science alone should not be grounds to exclude it. phrenology is a particularly interesting tag that i would also think might be useful.
    – faustus
    Apr 11 '17 at 11:22

I too think there would be no harm in having a parapsychology tag. Although I think that parapsychology is a pseudoscience with false premises, no evidence and mostly quack studies, it is useful up to some extent to have a discussion on several claims and why they erroneous and unsupported. Keeping parapsychology out may apear as a chance for certain people to characterise the scientific community as close minded and dogmatic when in fact it is the opposite. And this is quite important in an age of scepticism towards science and of a growing anti-science movement. Surely there is the danger of endless conflicts and name calling. However, an open discussion may expose the field for what it really is, and parapsychological ideas may lose their influence on the public opinion. Also, there are many researchers studying those claims like Crhis French, James Alcock and Steven Novella whose work should be read by anyone with an interest in parapsychology. So some discussion may actually be of some benefit.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .