Content provided in partnership with
Controversy and the problems of parapsychology
Journal of Parapsychology, The, March, 2002 by Nancy L. Zingrone
I agree. It is crucial to acknowledge the essential importance of the cognitive underpinnings of scientific debate, to recognize that there are always cognitive winners and losers whose relative positions in the debate are meaningful and must not be set aside. It is also important to understand the politics in which the cognitive debate evolves and persists. Without such an understanding, the analyst may forget that the attributions, which divide winners from losers, may be resource-based and not representative of the strength, utility, or "trueness" of the underlying knowledge claims. An integrated approach to science studies requires the analyst to remember that the knowledge claims themselves, and the process by which a controversy erupts and persists, are multiply determined and complex and may result from a symphony (or a cacophony) of forces, processes, and positions, with the contours of the natural world more or less obscured. Just as we understand that, in parapsychology, a multivariate approach requ ires empirical and theoretical sophistication, Martin and Richards (1995) believe future science analysts will need to be more careful about what voice, what observation and what depiction are privileged as their analysis proceeds. Their position on the development of science studies methodology makes sense to me, as I stand on the periphery of their discipline, ready to bolt back to parapsychology proper as soon as I can. But, as in all other fields, Martin and Richards are only two voices in the controversy over method in science studies. Like all other scientific and academic communities, there are those who disagree.
- More Articles of Interest
- Parapsychology's contribution to psychology: a view from the front line
- Guest editorial: why Parapsychology now?
- A dog that seems to know when his owner is coming home: Effect of...
- The Parapsychological Association, Inc.
- To be or not to be! A "paraphysics" for the new millennium -...
STUDIES OF CONTROVERSY AS INSPIRATIONAL TEXTS FOR BELEAGUERED SCIENTISTS
Even though science analysts disagree on methods, they all agree that scientific controversies, in general, provide a particularly fruitful locus for research into the development and refinement of scientific "fact," method, argument, and practice. But beyond the understanding one can draw in a general sense from this line of research, there are other insights in the literature on scientific controversy that I, as a working parapsychologist, find personally heartening. One example is Jeanne Fahnestock's (1997) article, "Arguing in Different Forums," published in the anthology Landmarks Essays in the Rhetoric of Science (Harris, 1997). In her paper, Fahnestock outlined the controversy that has raged between scholars who believe that modem humans migrated to the North American continent around 14,000 years ago and those who push the date much farther back. Among the many parallels to the problems parapsychology faces are the following: the rhetorical methods used by combatants in the controversy; the varying us e and relative merit of popular versus academic publishing outlets; the difficulties involved in making convincing arguments out of exceedingly ambiguous or emotionally highly charged data; and the seemingly never-ending search for the next tangible piece of evidence.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Home & Garden
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »