Telepathy: 150 Years of Failure?
On this page
Can science prove that psychic powers are impossible?
Imagine two respected psychologists sitting down to write what amounts to a scientific obituary. In 2019, Arthur Reber and James Alcock published a sweeping critique in American Psychologist, essentially arguing that 150 years of parapsychology research has been chasing something that simply cannot exist. Their position wasn't just skeptical—it was absolute: psi phenomena are as impossible as flying pigs, and any data suggesting otherwise must be fundamentally flawed. This wasn't just another academic disagreement, but a direct challenge to an entire field of study.
Two researchers argue that psychic phenomena violate fundamental scientific principles.
In 2019, two prominent skeptics published a scathing critique in American Psychologist, responding to earlier research that claimed evidence for psychic abilities. Arthur Reber and James Alcock didn't just question the data—they argued that psi phenomena are scientifically impossible. Their paper sparked intense debate about the very foundations of consciousness research.
Two prominent psychologists argue that parapsychology research is fundamentally impossible and that 150 years of study have produced literally no genuine progress.
Key Findings
- The authors concluded that psi phenomena are fundamentally impossible and any supporting evidence must result from methodological errors or statistical flukes.
- They found it puzzling that scientists continue researching parapsychology despite what they see as its obvious impossibility.
What Is This About?
Rather than conducting experiments, Reber and Alcock wrote a comprehensive theoretical critique of parapsychology research. They examined the field's claims through the lens of established scientific principles, arguing that psychic phenomena contradict fundamental laws of physics and biology. Using the analogy that 'pigs cannot fly,' they contended that any data suggesting otherwise must be flawed. They reviewed 150 years of parapsychology research and concluded it has made no genuine scientific progress.
This is a theoretical critique examining parapsychology research through established scientific principles rather than conducting new experiments.
The authors conclude that psi phenomena are scientifically impossible and any supporting data must result from methodological flaws or statistical errors.
How Good Is the Evidence?
150 years of research represents roughly six generations of scientists—yet the authors claim no genuine progress has been made in establishing psi phenomena.
This is a theoretical critique rather than an empirical study, so traditional quality metrics don't apply. Not pre-registered, no experimental controls, no data collection, and no statistical analyses. Published in a top-tier psychology journal (American Psychologist) and highly cited (92 citations), indicating significant impact. The authors present philosophical and theoretical arguments rather than new experimental evidence. As a critique, it relies on logical reasoning and interpretation of existing literature rather than methodological rigor.
The paper takes an a priori dismissive stance that may prevent fair evaluation of evidence, potentially exhibiting confirmation bias. The authors' philosophical position that psi is impossible could blind them to genuine anomalies. The critique lacks detailed analysis of specific high-quality studies and relies heavily on theoretical arguments rather than empirical examination.
Mainstream: Psi phenomena violate established physics and any supporting data reflects methodological errors or statistical artifacts. Moderate: While extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, anomalous results deserve careful investigation rather than dismissal. Frontier: Accumulated experimental evidence suggests genuine psi effects that may reveal new aspects of consciousness and reality.
Misconception: This study tested psychic abilities in the lab. Reality: This was purely a theoretical critique arguing that such abilities are scientifically impossible, regardless of experimental results.
To settle this debate would require either: (1) demonstrating psi effects under conditions that eliminate all known sources of error, or (2) showing how psi could work within known physics. This study meets neither criterion as it's a theoretical critique rather than an empirical test.
Claims made by parapsychologists cannot be true. The effects reported can have no ontological status; the data have no existential value.
Stance: Skeptical
What Does It Mean?
What's remarkable is the absolute certainty: these researchers don't just doubt psi phenomena—they declare them ontologically impossible, meaning they cannot exist in reality itself. It's rare to see such philosophical boldness in modern science.
This is like arguing that no matter how many people claim to have seen unicorns, the sightings must be mistaken because unicorns violate what we know about biology and evolution.
This study illustrates how theoretical constraints can shape scientific interpretation—sometimes researchers argue that certain phenomena are impossible based on existing knowledge, regardless of experimental results.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
Scientists continue to pursue parapsychology research despite its fundamental impossibility
moderateMethodology
Any data supporting psi effects must result from weak methodology, improper analyses, or Type I errors
strongInterpretations
Psi phenomena are existentially impossible and violate well-understood scientific principles
strongDespite 150 years of research, parapsychology has made literally no progress
moderateThis 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.