banner  
 
 
home books e-books audio books recent titles with blogs
   
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Society for Psychical Research Tackles Internet Encyclopedia Project

Posted on 17 November 2014, 11:09

I recently interviewed Robert McLuhan (below) for the December issue of “The Searchlight,” a publication of The Academy for Spiritual and Consciousness Studies.  Below is a slightly abbreviated version of that interview.

mcluhan
 
In his popular 2010 book, Randi’s Prize, Robert McLuhan, a British freelance journalist, discusses, as the subtitle of the book states, “what sceptics say about the paranormal, why they are wrong and why it matters.”

McLuhan begins the book as a “skeptic,” or “sceptic” (we’ll use the King’s English here) – an open-minded one – wondering why the million-dollar prize offered by James “The Amazing” Randi, an American stage magician, to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers to his satisfaction has not yet been claimed. McLuhan examines some of the best evidence offered by psychical researchers and parapsychologists favoring both psi and survival of the consciousness at death, then looks at the counter-arguments offered by the sceptics.  He carefully weighs the evidence for and against and in most cases concludes that the sceptics have ignored, twisted, distorted, misinterpreted, misrepresented, disregarded, ridiculed, or otherwise dismissed the best evidence.

A 1974 graduate of the University of Oxford, where he gained a First in English Literature, McLuhan has worked as foreign correspondent for The Guardian in Spain and Portugal, and now works as a writer for news and business magazines. He has been a member of the prestigious Society for Psychical Research (SPR) since 1993 and recently accepted the position of Commissioning Editor for a projected Internet Encyclopedia, which will provide objective biographies of researchers, psychics, mediums, and others who have made significant contributions to psychical research and parapsychology. 
I recently put some questions to McLuhan by e-mail.

Robert, what prompted the SPR to undertake this project?

“Hi Michael. I thought we needed a viable alternative to Wikipedia, where psi-related articles have become almost unreadable as a result of editing by sceptics. There’s always been quite a bit of sceptical material on Wikipedia, which is to be expected. But of late it seems to have got completely out of hand. It’s as though someone is looking over your shoulder while you’re reading, telling you, ‘Don’t believe this stuff! It’s not reliable! Pay no attention! Stop reading!’
“Typically, you get a paragraph of more or less objective information, the remnants of the original article, then an insertion tacked on telling you that it’s been debunked.  In some articles there’s hardly anything left of the original. If you look at the page on mediumship, for instance, it’s very long – around ten thousand words. But only the first two thousand provide anything like objective information. The rest is a jumble of disbelieving fragments: ‘this medium was caught in fraud by so-and-so, that one confessed, it’s obviously nonsense’. It’s not just that the articles are unbalanced. In the absence of almost any mention of the original research – the work that investigators did, and their reasoning – they’ve become meaningless.”

How has this situation arisen? What can be done about it?

“About 18 months ago someone sent me a link to the Guerrilla Skeptics site. I hadn’t come across it before, and I wrote about it on my blog, Paranormalia. We know that ideological sceptics are very committed to keeping science free of ‘woo’. What few of us grasped was how organised they are behind the scenes. It’s fortunate in a way that Susan Gerbic, who founded Guerrilla Skeptics, is keen to talk about the work she does to ‘improve’ Wikipedia pages on psi topics, training editors in how to work the system. I don’t think she’s the only one doing it, by any means, but she provides useful insights into their methods.

“It involves being very clued up about how Wikipedia works, its rules and regulations. Edits are supposed to be preceded by discussion on the talk pages, and ideally it ought to be possible to come to a consensus.  That’s clearly what Wikipedians believe. But it doesn’t work for controversial topics. Psychical research is treated as a marginal or fringe belief. The mere fact that mainstream science rejects it gives hostile editors the right to make whatever edits they like, and revert those they don’t, with the expectation of being supported by the site administrators. It’s enormously difficult to overcome that built-in disadvantage.

“There was a bit of discussion on my blog about what to do. Some people, myself included, thought we ought to try to fight back. Others were convinced that would be a waste of time, and it would make more sense to create our own resource. It turned out they were right. After I’d tried to carry out Wikipedia edits, and watched them being reverted instantly – and seeing other people having the same frustrating experience – I realised the second option is the only way forward, at least in the short term.”   

Wikipedia is always the first reference that pops up when a particular subject is researched.  Many people will not go beyond that first reference. I don’t know how far down the SPR reference will be, but is there any way to deal with that problem? 


“I’ve talked to a few search experts about this.  Google has different ways to evaluate websites, and they keep changing. That’s good, because it makes it harder for people to buy their way to the top of the rankings.  A site has to be genuinely popular, which I believe ours will be.

“If we go about it in an orderly way I’m pretty confident that the encyclopedia will soon be in the top four or five rankings for searches on paranormal topics, along with other new projects that are about to launch, such as Deepak Chopra’s ISHAR and Rupert Sheldrake’s Open Sciences.  There’ll still be a challenge in getting people to click on our link rather than Wikipedia’s. But we’ll be getting good advice in that regard. 
“One of the experts I spoke to thought that Wikipedia would drop down the page quite quickly, as it’s apparently not that interested in promoting itself with regard to niche subjects. I don’t know how true that is, but it was encouraging to hear!”

Approximately how many people and subjects will be covered?  Will they be primarily historical figures or current people and subjects as well?
 
“Yes, good questions. We’re doing this in two stages. In the first, we’re getting enough material together to launch early next year, hopefully round about May. That would mean getting around 200 items ready. But we shall go on adding to it for at least another two years, and probably there will be a trickle of new additions on a regular basis after that as well.

“The material is of different kinds: subject articles, biographies, case studies, book reviews, and so on. I plan also to include some of the original literature, reports of investigations of mediums, hauntings, poltergeists, that sort of thing, as well as some of the more recent experimental stuff and the work on past-life memories. I reckon that at the end of three or four years we should have about 200 entries in each type, so about 1000 items in all. In addition, there will be lists of various kinds: researchers and subjects, experiments, investigations, glossary definitions, bibliographies, that sort of thing.

“So it will be a pretty comprehensive. As regards subject articles, in the first instance there’ll be a general overview of each major category. Eventually there’ll be a whole bunch of shorter articles that explore particular aspects. Readers will also be able to link to individual case studies, and hopefully some of them will go on to read the original literature. So it will be pretty well covered.”

Historically, the SPR has remained perched firmly on the fence when it comes to psychic and “spiritual” phenomena, not really taking a stand one way or the other.  I understand that this balance is necessary for it to retain its standing as a scientific organization. Based on the conclusions in your book, you clearly lean in the direction of the reality of psi and survival, so I guess the question here is how much of the debunkers’ (I prefer that to “sceptic”)  gobbledygook do you have to offer to satisfy the SPR authorities?

“Mike, I think this is misconception of what the SPR is and how it works. It’s collegiate. There’s no authority that directs things and that one has to submit to. I think it’s always been that way: if you look in the old journals you find controversies raging on all sorts of things among SPR researchers themselves.

“It’s certainly true that in the early years especially, there was a tendency to be sceptical about séance mediums, and that although there was much more certainty about mental mediumship, there was no rush to conclude in favour of survival. But this is only to be expected in the context of scientific investigation. Séance mediumship has always been problematic in this regard. And while there’s very good evidence of survival in mental mediumship, there are also counter indications that have to be taken account of. So this is not so much about an organisation choosing to sit on the fence, it’s about a group of researchers, past and present, reflecting different currents of thought, in a way that makes it unrealistic collectively to back a single idea.

“There clearly has to be balance in how we present the material. Sceptics’ arguments need to be reflected fairly and fully. But that’s not about the debunkers, it is about the general scepticism in secular society, which they merely reflect. It shouldn’t be forgotten that a lot of their arguments derived from the findings of psychical researchers themselves.

“This is not about an individual or organisation presenting a particular position. It’s about presenting the research, in all its variety, as fairly as possible. I believe that if we can do this it will become evident that there’s far more depth and detail in the investigative literature than is generally understood, and that it points firmly to the existence of phenomena that science as yet does not recognize.”

How do you think sceptics will react to this?

“I think they’ll be challenged by it. For a long time now they haven’t had to do any real work. They can simply lift bits and bobs from the research literature that support their case, quote them out of context – job done. This will change the game entirely.

“In a certain sense it will give them new opportunities. Very few sceptics actually read the literature. They just read each other’s books. So they know that for instance that Eusapia Palladino was often caught cheating; that Leonora Piper fished for information; that anoxia is an explanation for the near death experience; that ESP experiments are flawed and unreliable, and so on, all that stereotypical stuff. This will greatly expand the possibilities, since they will start finding all kinds of new exposés and sceptical claims that they weren’t aware of, and be able go into more convincing depth.

“However, the problem for them is going to be that the people they need to reach – not their own circle of likeminded sceptics, but the agnostic masses – are going to have access to the same material. Many of these people will start to realise the reality about psychical research, that sceptical approaches do not always, or even often, lead to satisfying explanations.

“It’s inevitable that this will eventually impact on the media, which will make a big difference. Until now sceptics like Richard Wiseman have been able to say pretty much what they like on radio or TV, with the expectation of being taken seriously by programme producers and presenters. The opposition – psychic claimants, mediums, parapsychologists – are at a disadvantage because educated people don’t know about the scientific research that supports their position. But I can imagine situations where the sceptics start getting push-back from journalists who have taken the trouble to educate themselves.  This will be an interesting development, to say the least!”

Michael Tymn is the author of The Afterlife Revealed: What Happens After We Die is published by White Crow Books. His latest book, Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife is now available on Amazon and other online book stores.
His latest book Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I is published by White Crow Books.

Paperback               Kindle

Next blog post:  December 1


Comments

I have also noticed how very bad Wikipedia is on such topics, and have even thought it almost seemed it was an organized effort to degrade the Wikipedia entries. It’s illuminating to hear that such is, in fact, the case.

Gene W. Smith, Wed 26 Nov, 06:10

Excited to see that you are going to do this…as a spiritualist I have read the wiki entries and completely agree with your assessment of them…look forward to seeing your work up and running! all the best!

Nancy DePoe, Mon 24 Nov, 06:54

Victor Zammit?  Yes indeed!! 

This is very productive thinking, the more so because the Internet is the unrestricted playground that has allowed psychotics and worse to maraud at will.  Unlike the societies in which we live and which have rules that we all broadly follow, there are no rules on the Internet.

On the Internet, there is no requirement to be truthful and no restriction on putting arguments based on heavily selective and/or subjective evidence; even outright lies are freely used.  Moreover, there are no penalties (such as exist in our societies) for telling outright lies.  It is this ‘freedom’ that has produced the worst of the anonymous trolls.

Steve’s suggestion is superb.  Let us apply the same rules of evidence that apply to most of the rest of the world.  Victor is possibly unique in having a wide knowledge of this field plus being a very experienced lawyer but this is a big ask of a man who is already more than busy with his excellent weekly newsletter.  Might there be others out there who have this same combination of knowledge who could be conscripted?

Summary: it is time that the Screaming Sceptics were held accountable and this would be a very effective way of doing it.

Leslie Harris, Wed 19 Nov, 22:20

I don’t believe there is any proper systematic investigation done by those who alter the Wikipedia entries. They simply lift bits of research literature that support their case and make them fit with their own closed-minded paradigm.

Objective and balanced information, on any subject, is essential, so I’m really looking forward to the launch of this new website in May 2015.

Others will take a lead from it once it’s up and running and you’ll see more of the same appearing. This balance is sorely needed where the results of investigators with a decent critical thinking apparatus will be available for all to read.

I encourage others to link to and circulate this interview, as I will be doing!

Grahame, Wed 19 Nov, 10:34

In fact it would seem wise to have Victor in on the ground floor planning the format of the SPR Wiki
perhaps a link on every page to the lawyers perspective. Several qualified lawyers have agreed that Victor Zammit has a compelling case in his reasonings about afterlife. other lawyers could be invited to provide second opinions.

Steve Trueblue, Wed 19 Nov, 01:11

In the new SPR wiki we need to include Victor Zammit and his legal perspective on the rules of evidence, lying in the public domain, which is open slather, and the legal need for cross examination of hostile counter claimants., the Screaming Skeptics. From Hawking down,
I think lawyers settling disputes using rules of evidence is a useful adjunct to judgement of controversies even within the SPR. But certainly the general public would be better informed if they could turn to a lawyers perspective.Zammit already supplies much of this.

Steve Tueblue, Wed 19 Nov, 01:04

I look forward to hearing what others think of this site

david hall, Wed 19 Nov, 00:47

This is a large and laudable effort to level the playing field but it will probably be a very long time before the average Screaming Sceptic realizes that it is they who are being put under the microscope of rigorous scientific examination.

A common SS ploy is to accuse that scientific method is not being employed in this field whilst they make wild and unsubstantiated claims that do not observe any method, let alone that of established science!!

The SS used to bother me a lot but they continue to shoot themselves in both feet on a daily basis, so much so that they are becoming their own worst enemies.  What matters far more to me is that reliable reporting is available through groups like this one. 

In respect of refuting the mindless rants of the SS, people like Fontana have already done a very good job.  This needs to continue, of course, via any available avenue.

And remember, children, all psi phenomena can be explained by mass telepathy - which has never been demonstrated by anyone, including the SS Brigade!!

Leslie Harris, Tue 18 Nov, 02:26


Add your comment

Name

Email

Your comment

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Please note that all comments are read and approved before they appear on the website

 
translate this page
feature
We have been animals by Pierre-Emile Cornillier – Reine sleeps easily, grows cold from the very beginning of the passes, and then, to my surprise, returns to an almost normal temperature. Later on I learn that Vettellini, finding her in bad health, has arrested the chilling of the body. Read here
© White Crow Books | About us | Contact us | Author submissions | Trade orders