The Discipline of Parapsychology

The term "paradigm," first popularized in Thomas Kuhn's classic 1962 study, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, has come to stand for the essential organization of any field of scientific endeavor. In his "Postscript - 1969," Kuhn (1970), stated that he had been using the term in both a global and a specific sense.

In the global sense, Kuhn defined paradigm as "the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques and so on shared by the members of a given community." He later suggested that the term had too often been implicitly accepted without conscious awareness of alternatives or critical examination and proposed that, in its global sense, "paradigm" be replaced by the term, "disciplinary matrix."

The main parts of this disciplinary matrix include:

(1) Formalized theories and laws, plus definitions of the symbols they employ.

(2) Metaphysical models, such as materialism or causality, which provide preferred analogies and metaphors; set limits to possible processes, events, and objects; and determine what types of explanation, problem, and solution can be accepted as legitimate.

(3) Values concerning the goals, aesthetics, and ethics of scientific research.

(4) Exemplars, which are problem solutions that provide concrete application of theories and laws in specific settings. "Exemplar" is Kuhn's new label for the specific sense in which he had previously been using the term, "paradigm."

It has often been said that parapsychology is essentially a body of data in search of a theory (Scriven 1962, Thouless 1969, Pratt 1974, Thakur 1977). Certainly no one would argue that parapsychologists have obtained general agreement on the mechanisms by which psi information moves through time (as in precognition) or space (as in clairvoyance). These remain fundamental problems yet to be solved, although some intriguing and important theories have been proposed. Only when these theoretical problems are solved can parapsychology truly become integrated into the scientific community.

Nevertheless, the disciplinary matrix of parapsychology exists by virtue of the metaphysics, values, definitions, and Principles laid down by J. B. Rhine at the Institute of Parapsychology and at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Until recently, Rhine's "extra-sensorimotor communications" Paradigm was so implicitly accepted by parapsychologists that it went virtually unrecognized- except as the obvious alternative to unscientific spiritualism. However, recent discussions of this paradigm and its limitations (Nilsson 1975, Stanford 1977, Palmer 1979), as well as other scholarly approaches I will discuss throughout the book, suggest that parapsychology is already in a state of transition to a new disciplinary matrix.

The dissatisfaction in parapsychology is partly the result of its failure to attract either funding for its research or recognition of its findings in mainstream scientific journals. However, the tension may be intrinsic to the situation and not a fault of the parapsychologists themselves. Molecular biologist Gunther Stent (1972) argues in Scientific American that, although the findings of parapsychology have been subjected to as thorough a scrutiny as any phenomena in psychology, scientists were nevertheless justified in ignoring the data because they were "premature" and not yet an integral part of theoretical science.

If and when parapsychology ever does become integrated into the mainstream of science, it will herald a revolution of major importance. However, the current search for a new disciplinary matrix within parapsychology is part of a smaller revolution, within a very small field. Although significant in its implications for parapsychology, education, and the psychology of human potential, such a shift of emphasis can do no more than pave the way for the larger revolution that is yet to come.

The arguments for paradigm shifts are not always explicit or easy to follow. Kuhn (1970) notes, "Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life. Because it has that character, the choice is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue. When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm's defense."

Kuhn goes on to point out that even these circular arguments can be very persuasive, although never logically compelling for those who "refuse to step into the circle." He emphasizes the need for investigators of scientific revolutions to examine "not only the impact of nature and of logic, but also the techniques of persuasive argumentation effective within the quite special groups that constitute the community of scientists." This advice is essential in evaluating the growing crisis within parapsychology

Kuhn, T. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. (Originally published, 1962.)

Nilsson, L. The paradigm of the Rhinean school. European Journal of Parapsychology, 1975, ](1), 45-59, 1(2), 45-56.

Palmer, J.A. Parapsychology as a probabilistic science: Facing the implications. Presidential address, 22nd Annual Convention, Parapsychological Associations, John F. Kennedy University, 1979.

Pratt, J.G. Comments on the Medhurst-Scott criticism of the Pratt-Woodruff experiment. Journal of Parapsychology, June 1974, 38(2), 185-201.

Scriven, M. The frontiers of science: Psychoanalysis and parapsychology. In R.G. Colodny (Ed.), Frontiers of science and philosophy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962, 69- 130.

Stanford, R.G. Are parapsychologists paradigmless in psiland? In B. Shapin and L. Coly (Eds.), The philosophv of parapsychology. New York, Parapsychology Foundation, 1977.

Stent, G.S. Prematurity and uniqueness in science. Scientific American, December 1972, 227(6), 84-93.

Thakur, S.C. Parapsychology in search of a paradigm. In B. Shapin and L. Coly (Eds.), The Philosophy of Parapsychology. New York: Parapsychology Foundation, 1975, 198-208.

Thouless, R.H. Parapsychology during the last quarter of a century. Journal of Parapsychology, 1969, 33, 283-299.