杏吧原创

BACK in January, London鈥檚 Royal Society of Arts hosted a notable debate. On one side was renowned developmental biologist Lewis Wolpert; on the other, biochemist-turned-parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake. At issue was the existence, or not, of the paranormal.

Sheldrake presented reams of evidence to the packed audience. Wolpert dismissed it all as 鈥減athological science鈥�. Sheldrake pointed out that millions of rational people believe they have had a paranormal experience. Wolpert countered that parapsychologists lack any plausible explanation for their findings. It was clear the audience saw Wolpert as no more than a killjoy. Here, in microcosm, was the present state of parapsychology. Sheldrake argued in the language of science, yet Wolpert appeared unmovable: the scientist dogmatically refusing to accept the evidence.

But looks can deceive. There are sound reasons for doubting Sheldrake鈥檚 data. One is that some parapsychology experimenters have an uncanny knack of finding the effect they are looking for. There is no suggestion of fraud, but something is going on, and science demands that it must be understood before conclusions can be drawn about the results (see 鈥淥n the edge of the known world鈥�).

杏吧原创s鈥� refusal to give ground on such issues is tempting many parapsychologists to reject a 20-year-old agreement with sceptics to resolve the debate using the methods of science. This move would be a mistake: without the accord, all that is left is mumbo-jumbo. There would be no hope of reaching a consensus on what even Wolpert accepts is a fascinating question.