A False Start in the Study of Communication
There are dozens of ways to study communication scientifically. But this article won’t tell you about a single one of them. Instead, what follows is an exploration of a scientific phenomenon rejected by the international community: Telepathy.
The term, coined by Frederic Myers in 1892, came to envelop a colourful pseudoscience embraced in the late 19th century [1].Yet for all its lurid history of exposed fraud and scientific malpractice, the history of telepathy research has much to tell us about how we deal with rejected scientific hypotheses today. As a field, it’s bizarre. As a model for perseverance and faith in findings, it’s something else entirely. Furthermore, the story of telepathy can tell us how even the most damning dead ends can have important (and surprising) consequences.
Laying Down the Law
Many people did (and some still do) take telepathy very seriously. For example, both the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) and its American equivalent (the ASPR) were founded in the 1800s to study psychic phenomena. Throughout their long history, the groups have devoted themselves both to investigating the above-mentioned practices and debunking fraudsters [2]. Both organizations continue to have active membership today, and operate several peer-reviewed journals including The Journal of Parapsychology [3].
Scientists
from these groups have also helped to standardize experimental
practice. Often, “Zener Cards” are used to test whether a card viewer
can transmit information to a subject far away. Another well-known
family of experiments relies on the “Ganzfeld”, a sensory deprivation
chamber in which participants try to communicate with a “receiver”.
Though the setup has been roundly criticized, a meta-analysis published
in the more mainstream Psychological Bulletin found a tiny, yet
significant statistical effect [4]. In intervening years, however, the
methodology of this review has also been called into question [5].
Perseverance is a critical quality in science, and indeed, the proponents of telepathy research have shown remarkable staunchness. In fact, experiments in extended consciousness have recently moved from Ganzfeld chambers into fMRI scanners. Theoretically, if one can show that one participant’s brain activity simultaneously covaries with another’s, there could be mental forces at work [6,7]. Alas, the promise offered by even the most up-to-date scanners have thus far failed to provide unassailable results. As with earlier techniques, experiments still suffer from questionable design and small sample numbers [7].
Revenge of the Skeptics
Alas, most findings, including the Ganzfeld meta-analysis above, likely represent a fluke. Despite its 100+ year history, there has never been a single experiment that proves the existence of telepathy. But this was certainly not for lack of trying [5,7]. In one memorable example, the US government spent 20 years and more than 20 million dollars on a top-secret project aimed at spying on the Soviet Union through telepathy and related techniques [8]. Formal meta-analyses and revisiting of original scientific data have also led to dead ends, with most effects explained-away through poor experimental design [5,7,9].
This is not to say, however, that “spooky” communication is not real. Humans’ drive to communicate is so strong that it seems we may pick up information from others in the form of subtle body language (see article on page 5). In the past, these phenomena were used to disprove hundreds of experiments, but there are more contemporary explanations of why we can’t shake a nagging feeling that telepathy might be real. For example, JM Rudski was able to show that perceived telepathy could be due to covariation and hindsight bias [9]. Furthermore, expectancy bias and wishful thinking may also contribute [5,7,9].
Dead End or Lively Beginning?
While all may be lost for telepathy, we still have a few wonderful souvenirs of its one-time popularity. Perhaps the best comes from the life-long quest of a scientist to explain mysterious communication between himself and his sister. Driven by this need, he found a way to attach electrodes to a subject’s skull and detect faint electrical activity. Dr. Hans Berger was certain that he had finally discovered telepathy, but instead, was embarrassingly wrong. But through his error, Berger had laid the foundations for electroencephalolographic readings: the substrate for today’s EEG.
In closing, it seems that Berger might have the last laugh after all. While his dream of a telepathic force met with a dead end, researchers are starting to use EEG and fMRI to detect communicative patterns of activity in patients trapped in a vegetative state [11]. Perhaps one day, electrical transmission of thoughts may be a workable reality, enabling information flow only dreamed about previously. Until then, may the study of telepathy hearten us all with its colorful characters, and perseverance in the face of widespread disdain. Even if you don’t believe in a science, there’s an awful lot that you can learn from those who once did, or still do.
[1] Hamilton, Immortal Longings: F.W.H. Myers and the Victorian Search for Life after Death, 2009
[2] Sommer, Hist Human Sci, 2012
[3] http://bit.ly/1sKZhxl
[4] Storm et al, Psych Bull, 2010
[5] Rouder et al, Psych Bull, 2013
[6] Moulton and Kosslyn, J Cogn Neurosci, 2008
[7] Acunzo et al, Front Hum Neurosci, 2013
[8] http://bit.ly/1zj73ai
[9] Rudski, Psychol Rep, 2002
[10] Haas, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2003
[11] Chennu et al, Neuroimage Clin, 2013
There are dozens of ways to study communication scientifically. But this article won’t tell you about a single one of them. Instead, what follows is an exploration of a scientific phenomenon rejected by the international community: Telepathy.
The term, coined by Frederic Myers in 1892, came to envelop a colourful pseudoscience embraced in the late 19th century [1].Yet for all its lurid history of exposed fraud and scientific malpractice, the history of telepathy research has much to tell us about how we deal with rejected scientific hypotheses today. As a field, it’s bizarre. As a model for perseverance and faith in findings, it’s something else entirely. Furthermore, the story of telepathy can tell us how even the most damning dead ends can have important (and surprising) consequences.
Laying Down the Law
Many people did (and some still do) take telepathy very seriously. For example, both the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) and its American equivalent (the ASPR) were founded in the 1800s to study psychic phenomena. Throughout their long history, the groups have devoted themselves both to investigating the above-mentioned practices and debunking fraudsters [2]. Both organizations continue to have active membership today, and operate several peer-reviewed journals including The Journal of Parapsychology [3].
 |
| Communication with tincans, Source: Wikimedia Commons |
EXPERIMENTS STILL SUFFER FROM
QUESTIONABLE DESIGN
Perseverance is a critical quality in science, and indeed, the proponents of telepathy research have shown remarkable staunchness. In fact, experiments in extended consciousness have recently moved from Ganzfeld chambers into fMRI scanners. Theoretically, if one can show that one participant’s brain activity simultaneously covaries with another’s, there could be mental forces at work [6,7]. Alas, the promise offered by even the most up-to-date scanners have thus far failed to provide unassailable results. As with earlier techniques, experiments still suffer from questionable design and small sample numbers [7].
Revenge of the Skeptics
Alas, most findings, including the Ganzfeld meta-analysis above, likely represent a fluke. Despite its 100+ year history, there has never been a single experiment that proves the existence of telepathy. But this was certainly not for lack of trying [5,7]. In one memorable example, the US government spent 20 years and more than 20 million dollars on a top-secret project aimed at spying on the Soviet Union through telepathy and related techniques [8]. Formal meta-analyses and revisiting of original scientific data have also led to dead ends, with most effects explained-away through poor experimental design [5,7,9].
NO PROOF FOR TELEPATHY, BUT NOT FOR
LACK OF TRYING
This is not to say, however, that “spooky” communication is not real. Humans’ drive to communicate is so strong that it seems we may pick up information from others in the form of subtle body language (see article on page 5). In the past, these phenomena were used to disprove hundreds of experiments, but there are more contemporary explanations of why we can’t shake a nagging feeling that telepathy might be real. For example, JM Rudski was able to show that perceived telepathy could be due to covariation and hindsight bias [9]. Furthermore, expectancy bias and wishful thinking may also contribute [5,7,9].
Dead End or Lively Beginning?
While all may be lost for telepathy, we still have a few wonderful souvenirs of its one-time popularity. Perhaps the best comes from the life-long quest of a scientist to explain mysterious communication between himself and his sister. Driven by this need, he found a way to attach electrodes to a subject’s skull and detect faint electrical activity. Dr. Hans Berger was certain that he had finally discovered telepathy, but instead, was embarrassingly wrong. But through his error, Berger had laid the foundations for electroencephalolographic readings: the substrate for today’s EEG.
TURNS OUT, BERGER WAS EMBARRASSINGLY
WRONG
In closing, it seems that Berger might have the last laugh after all. While his dream of a telepathic force met with a dead end, researchers are starting to use EEG and fMRI to detect communicative patterns of activity in patients trapped in a vegetative state [11]. Perhaps one day, electrical transmission of thoughts may be a workable reality, enabling information flow only dreamed about previously. Until then, may the study of telepathy hearten us all with its colorful characters, and perseverance in the face of widespread disdain. Even if you don’t believe in a science, there’s an awful lot that you can learn from those who once did, or still do.
[1] Hamilton, Immortal Longings: F.W.H. Myers and the Victorian Search for Life after Death, 2009
[2] Sommer, Hist Human Sci, 2012
[3] http://bit.ly/1sKZhxl
[4] Storm et al, Psych Bull, 2010
[5] Rouder et al, Psych Bull, 2013
[6] Moulton and Kosslyn, J Cogn Neurosci, 2008
[7] Acunzo et al, Front Hum Neurosci, 2013
[8] http://bit.ly/1zj73ai
[9] Rudski, Psychol Rep, 2002
[10] Haas, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2003
[11] Chennu et al, Neuroimage Clin, 2013
by Constance Holman, PhD Student AG Schmitz
this article originally appeared 2014 in CNS Volume 7, Issue 4, Communication and Social Media
No comments:
Post a Comment