I regularly review books for the Popular Science site, and have just written one that makes me feel a bit guilty. I hate being nasty about a book (after all, someone else could be just as nasty about mine), but I felt I had to. The book in question has had quite a lot of media coverage here – it’s Making Time by Steve Taylor, and it’s about subjective time.
Obviously you can’t answer the question in the title of this post on the whole review without reading the book and the review, but here’s the bit I want you to concentrate on. I was commenting on this remark in the book, shortly after the usual criticism of the short-sightedness of “Western science” when compared with mysticism and inner contemplation and the like.
…there’s massive anecdotal evidence for precognition. Scientists are often suspicious of anecdotes, preferring to stick to hard facts they can verify (or not) through experiments. But surely there are some cases where anecdotal evidence is so widespread and persuasive that is has to be taken seriously?
My response was:
The simple answer is “no”, Mr Taylor. I really get fed up of repeating the wonderful quote from the book Voodoo Science by Robert Park: “Data is not the plural of anecdote.” There used to be loads of anecdotal evidence for the existence of unicorns, just as there still is for alien abduction. Anecdotes prove nothing. They can show there is a need for investigation, but that is all. In cases of the paranormal, like precognition, all the anecdotes have yet to produce any significant results (Taylor has to dig back to Rhine’s discredited work). If Mr Taylor has any doubts, James Randi has a million dollars on offer for anyone who can reproduce an ability like precognition under proper conditions. (See his website for details.) No one has yet to come close.
Was I fair, or has he got a point?
You were fair.
I think if you said anything less, you would have not been fussy enough. After all, Taylor exhorted scientists to abandon the scientific method in favor of hearsay (a nice synonym for the kind of anecdotes in question).
I think you are too harsh. The book in question is popular psychology, while you review as if it’s a scientific textbook. And your attitude to precognition is slightly out of date. Read Dean Radin’s book The Entangled Universe for an overview of recent striking research into precognition and telepathy. James Randi’s paranormal challenge was never meant to be taken seriously, as he’s said himself. He states that there are ‘preliminary tests’ which have to be undergone before the actual test – and these are so ridiculous and unfair that no researcher has ever demeaned himself to undertake them. This supposed gulf between science and the ‘paranormal’ is outmoded and unhelpful. There’s no reason why there should not be phenomena and forces which are presently unaware of, and there’s no reason why our present understanding of reality should be complete.
I agree with you, Brian. As Jill says, there is a lot that remains to be discovered. But there is no independent evidence for the likes of the “paranormal”, “telepathy” or “precognition”, which are therefore classed as pseudoscience. The Popular Science website is correct, in my view, to dismiss these types of claim, until some independent, repeatable evidence under defined conditions is provided to substantiate whatever is being claimed.
I disagree with you Maxine. There is a lot of independent and verifiable evidence for paranormal phenomena – the problem is that the scientific mainstream is so heavily weighted against it that it’s unfairly dismissed or isn’t allowed to make its case. A good example of this was when Rupert Sheldrake presented his evidence for telephone telepathy, which met every reasonable standard of scientific research but was dismissed by several eminent scientists without even looking at the paper.