Humanism Under Scrutiny: A Critical Look
On this page
Can scientists dismiss telepathy evidence as mere 'crud'?
Imagine you're a researcher who just conducted six experiments that all point to the same startling conclusion: some people might actually have psychic abilities. But instead of celebrating, you feel so uncomfortable with your own results that you design a seventh experiment specifically hoping to make them disappear. That's exactly what happened when researchers Delgado-Romero and Howard found consistent evidence for telepathy in their studies, then tried to explain it away as statistical 'crud.' Parapsychologist Arthur Hastings wasn't buying it.
Researcher defends telepathy studies against critics who dismissed positive results.
In 2007, parapsychologist Arthur Hastings responded to researchers who had conducted telepathy experiments but then dismissed their own positive findings. The original team had found evidence for psychic abilities across six studies, but when they designed a seventh experiment that showed no telepathy, they suggested their earlier positive results might be statistical 'crud' - meaningless noise in the data.
When researchers get consistent positive results for telepathy but then try to design them away because they're 'uncomfortable' with the implications, it raises questions about scientific objectivity.
Key Findings
- Hastings concluded that the criticized researchers had actually produced consistent evidence for telepathy across multiple studies, and that dismissing these results as 'crud' was unscientific.
- He argued that their findings aligned with broader meta-analyses in parapsychology and that one negative study shouldn't invalidate an entire research program.
What Is This About?
Hastings wrote a letter to the editor critiquing the methodology and reasoning of researchers who had dismissed their own telepathy findings. He analyzed their experimental design choices and argued that their interpretation of results was inconsistent with scientific practice. Rather than conducting new experiments, he examined the logic and methodology of existing research to make his case.
This is a commentary critiquing another research team's telepathy experiments and their interpretation of results.
The author argues that dismissing positive telepathy results as 'crud' is unscientific and that the criticized research actually supports telepathy evidence.
How Good Is the Evidence?
The original researchers found positive results in six out of seven studies - an 86% success rate that Hastings argues is too consistent to dismiss as chance.
Supporters argue that consistent positive results across multiple studies shouldn't be dismissed when one experiment fails, and that calling results 'crud' without proper analysis is unscientific. Skeptics contend that researchers who find unexpected positive results should be more critical of their methods and consider mundane explanations before accepting extraordinary claims. Both sides agree that scientific integrity requires consistent standards for evaluating evidence.
Mainstream: This commentary lacks empirical data and represents advocacy rather than objective analysis. Moderate: The critique raises valid points about scientific consistency, though more systematic analysis would strengthen the argument. Frontier: This demonstrates how mainstream bias leads researchers to dismiss their own positive findings when they conflict with materialist assumptions.
Misconception: One failed experiment invalidates all previous positive results. Reality: In science, you evaluate the entire body of evidence, not just the most recent study.
To settle this debate, we'd need systematic replication of telepathy experiments with pre-registered protocols, independent analysis, and transparent data sharing. This commentary contributes by highlighting the importance of consistent evaluation standards, but doesn't provide new empirical evidence.
Perhaps it could be said that at last, after much hard work, they succeeded in devising a study that did not show evident telepathy.
Stance: Supportive
What Does It Mean?
The most striking aspect isn't the telepathy research itself, but watching scientists struggle with their own positive results. It's like discovering something extraordinary and then desperately trying to prove you didn't.
It's like a basketball player making 6 out of 7 free throws, then claiming they can't actually shoot because they missed the last one - the pattern suggests real ability despite one failure.
If Hastings is right that researchers are unconsciously designing away positive telepathy results, it would suggest that scientific objectivity faces unique challenges when studying consciousness phenomena. This could mean that some genuine effects are being systematically overlooked because they don't fit conventional scientific paradigms.
Scientific integrity requires applying the same standards to all results - you can't dismiss positive findings as 'crud' while accepting negative ones without proper analysis.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Findings
The criticized researchers found consistent evidence across six studies that 'some humans possess psychic powers'
moderateMethodology
Explaining away positive telepathy results by suggesting they are 'crud' is not very scientific
weakThe Ganzfeld experimental format does not actually test for telepathy because it does not exclude other forms of ESP
weakInterpretations
The parapsychological research field is highly sophisticated and cannot be dismissed based on one experiment
weakThis 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.