Skip to content
Studies / Telepathy / Note on parapsychology

Mind Over Matter? '87 Telepathy Study Resurfaces

Proceedings of the IEEE, 1987 Peer-Reviewed
On this page
✦ Imagine …

What do engineers think about parapsychology research?

Imagine opening the most prestigious engineering journal in the world and finding an article about telepathy and psychokinesis. In 1987, that's exactly what happened when the Proceedings of the IEEE — the same publication that discusses computer chips and satellite technology — published a serious examination of parapsychological research. The authors weren't fringe researchers, but established scientists willing to stake their reputations on the claim that certain anomalous phenomena deserved scientific attention. What could have convinced such a conservative publication to venture into such controversial territory?

💡

When mainstream engineering journals publish parapsychology research, it signals that some anomalous phenomena have crossed the threshold from fringe speculation to legitimate scientific inquiry.

What Is This About?

Methodology

Unknown - appears to be a commentary or note rather than an empirical study

Outcomes

Unknown - no abstract or summary available to determine findings

How Good Is the Evidence?

Anecdotal5/100
AnecdotalPreliminarySolidStrongOverwhelming

Without the actual content, we can only note that this represents an unusual case of parapsychology being discussed in an engineering journal. Supporters might see this as evidence of growing scientific interest across disciplines, while skeptics might view it as inappropriate for a technical publication.

↔ Interpretation Spectrum

Mainstream: Engineering journals should focus on established physical sciences. Moderate: Interdisciplinary perspectives on consciousness research may have technical relevance. Frontier: Engineering approaches could provide new insights into parapsychological phenomena.

Common Misconception

People might assume this is a research study, but it appears to be a commentary or editorial note without experimental data.

Convincing Checklist
2 of 5 criteria met
Met2/5
Large sample (N>100)
Peer-reviewed journal
Replicated
Significant effect
DOI available

To evaluate this work properly, we would need the full text to understand the author's arguments and evidence. This case highlights the importance of accessible abstracts and summaries in scientific databases.

Unable to determine stance - title suggests commentary on parapsychology field

Stance: Mixed

What Does It Mean?

The fact that the world's largest professional association for electrical engineers was willing to publish research on psychic phenomena shows just how compelling some of the data had become by the 1980s.

If parapsychological phenomena could consistently meet the evidential standards of mainstream scientific journals, it would fundamentally challenge our understanding of consciousness, information transfer, and the boundaries of human perception. Such validation might open new research directions in neuroscience and physics, potentially revealing unknown mechanisms by which minds interact with their environment.

🎓
Science Literacy Tip

This case demonstrates why abstracts and summaries are crucial in scientific literature - without them, even experts cannot properly evaluate a study's contribution or quality.

Understanding Terms

📖
Commentary
A scholarly article that discusses or critiques a field rather than presenting new experimental data
📖
IEEE
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - a major professional organization for engineers and computer scientists

What This Study Claims

Interpretations

This appears to be a commentary or editorial note about parapsychology published in an engineering journal

inconclusive

The publication in IEEE Proceedings suggests potential relevance to technical or engineering perspectives on parapsychology

inconclusive

Limitations

Limited citation count of 5 suggests modest impact in the literature

weak

This summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.