Mind Over Matter? Telepathy's Philosophical Roots
On this page
Should philosophers take psychic phenomena seriously?
Imagine you're a philosopher in 1979, sitting in your university office, when a colleague drops a controversial anthology on your desk about parapsychology. Most of your peers would probably roll their eyes and dismiss it outright — after all, what could telepathy or psychokinesis possibly have to do with serious philosophical inquiry? But philosopher Tim George argued that this widespread dismissal was itself a philosophical problem, comparing his colleagues to ostriches burying their heads in the sand. His review revealed a curious paradox: while most philosophers ignored parapsychological research entirely, some of the sharpest philosophical minds who actually examined the data found profound implications for our understanding of consciousness and reality.
Philosophers are largely ignoring parapsychology despite its potential philosophical importance.
In 1979, philosopher Tim George reviewed an anthology about parapsychology's philosophical dimensions. He noticed something troubling: most philosophers were completely ignoring research into psychic phenomena, even though some brilliant minds who had studied the evidence believed it raised profound questions about reality.
The philosophical community's widespread dismissal of parapsychological research may itself be an unexamined philosophical stance that prevents serious inquiry into consciousness and reality.
Key Findings
- George concluded that philosophers were acting like ostriches with their heads in the sand when it came to parapsychology.
- He found that those philosophers who had seriously studied the evidence believed it had important implications, but they were in the minority.
What Is This About?
George examined how the philosophical community was responding to parapsychological research. He looked at whether philosophers were engaging with experimental and spontaneous psi phenomena, and analyzed why most were avoiding the topic entirely. He argued that this avoidance was intellectually irresponsible.
This is a philosophical review examining how philosophers have engaged with parapsychological research and its implications.
The author argues that philosophers have largely ignored parapsychological phenomena despite their potential philosophical significance.
How Good Is the Evidence?
George mentions 'a substantial percentage' of philosophers ignore parapsychology, though he doesn't provide specific numbers. This mirrors broader academic trends where parapsychology remains marginalized despite decades of research.
Supporters argue that philosophers have a duty to examine all evidence that might challenge our understanding of mind and reality, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes them. Skeptics contend that philosophers are right to focus on well-established phenomena rather than waste time on fringe claims. Critics of George's position might say that ignoring weak evidence isn't intellectual cowardice but good scholarly judgment.
Mainstream: Philosophers are justified in ignoring parapsychology because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that hasn't been provided. Moderate: Philosophers should at least be familiar with parapsychological research before dismissing it, even if they remain skeptical. Frontier: Parapsychological phenomena represent a crucial frontier that could revolutionize our understanding of consciousness and reality.
People might think philosophers automatically consider all possibilities equally. In reality, like other academics, philosophers can have blind spots and may avoid topics that challenge their worldview or seem professionally risky.
To settle whether philosophers should engage more with parapsychology, we'd need surveys of philosophical attitudes, analysis of citation patterns, and clearer evidence about psi phenomena themselves. This commentary provides an important perspective but doesn't offer systematic evidence for its claims about philosophical neglect.
A substantial percentage of philosophers has assumed the posture of playing the proverbial ostrich, head buried in the sand, concerning parapsychological phenomena.
Stance: Mixed
What Does It Mean?
The most striking aspect is the meta-philosophical twist: George essentially argued that dismissing parapsychology without investigation might itself be an unscientific stance disguised as scientific skepticism.
It's like having a group of food critics who refuse to taste a particular cuisine because they've decided in advance it can't be good - without ever actually trying it.
If George's critique holds water, it suggests that academic disciplines might systematically exclude important areas of inquiry through institutional bias rather than scientific rigor. This could mean that our understanding of consciousness and human potential is artificially constrained by academic gatekeeping. The implications extend beyond parapsychology to any field that challenges conventional scientific paradigms.
Commentary pieces like this highlight important questions but shouldn't be confused with systematic research - they represent one scholar's perspective rather than comprehensive evidence.
Understanding Terms
What This Study Claims
Interpretations
The anthology addresses a need not felt by many philosophers due to their lack of knowledge about parapsychology
weakA substantial percentage of philosophers has ignored parapsychological phenomena
weakAcute philosophical minds who have studied psi data believe it has severe philosophical implications
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.