About the Author



Preface to the 2009 Edition


























This eBook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

Version 1.0
Epub ISBN 9781446438886
61–63 Uxbridge Road, London W5 5SA
A Random House Group Company
A CORGI BOOK: 9780552162357
Originally published in the United States of America as The Conscious Universe in 1997 by HarperCollins Publishers
First publication in Great Britain
Corgi edition published 2009
Copyright © Dean Radin 1997
Dean Radin has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work.
This book is a work of non-fiction.
A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
Addresses for Random House Group Ltd companies outside the UK can be found at:
The Random House Group Ltd Reg. No. 954009
2 4 6 8 10 9 7 5 3 1

About the Author

Dean Radin is senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) and founder of the Consciousness Research Laboratory at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He has held appointments at Princeton University, the University of Edinburgh, and several Silicon Valley think tanks, and has produced cutting-edge parapsychological research for AT&T, Contel, SRI International, and the US government.
To my parents, Jerome Radin and Hilda Radin,
and to my brother, Len Radin


I am indebted to numerous friends and colleagues who encouraged me to follow my instincts and take the road less traveled. David Waltz and Klaus Witz supported my interests in graduate school. Later, I was inspired by the words and deeds of Stanley Krippner, Charles Tart, Helmut Schmidt, and William Braud. Hal Puthoff and Edwin May were my role models at SRI International. Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne helped make Princeton University a thrilling place to work. Robert Morris and Deborah Delanoy were good friends and colleagues at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. And Alan Salisbury and Stuart Brodsky were visionary leaders at Contel Technology Center. I sincerely thank them all.

I also thank Jessica Utts, Roger Nelson, Jerry Solfvin, Marilyn Schlitz, and Dick Bierman for many stimulating discussions that helped shape the tone and content of this book; Donald Baepler, for his unwavering support of my lab at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Robert Bigelow, for his vision and support of scientific exploration; and Jannine Rebman and the students at UNLV who made valuable contributions to our research.

I gratefully acknowledge the organizations and foundations that have provided funding to sustain our research. We have received grants from the Bigelow Foundation (Las Vegas, Nevada), the Parapsychology Foundation (New York City), the Institut fur Grenzgebiete der Psychologieund Psychohygiene (Freiburg, Germany), the Society for Psychical Research (London, England), and the Fundacao Bial (Porto, Portugal).

I thank my literary agent, Sandra Martin, and my editor, Eamon Dolan, for their expertise in shepherding these words through the maze of the publishing world. Finally, I thank my good friend Susie and my little poodle dog, Holly, for forcing me occasionally to do something other than work.


NONSENSE!” BARKED THE man in the pin-striped suit. “There isn’t a shred of evidence for psychic phenomena!” The clacking sound of the rails punctuated his blunt dismissal.

His companion, a young woman with luminous eyes and an immense halo of hair, was unimpressed. “Harry,” she said, glaring at him, “the evidence is staring you in the face.”

When I had boarded the commuter train a few minutes earlier, I was looking forward to an uneventful trip. But as the train started to move, two latecomers rushed in and took the seats next to me. Their argument had clearly been percolating for some time.

Harry was an advertisement for Brooks Brothers, complete with attaché case and Wall Street Journal tucked under one arm. She was dressed in saffron and carried a well-worn book bag.

“In my meditation last night,” she said, pouting, “I received a message from Zeron.”

Harry rolled his eyes and, voice dripping with sarcasm, said, “Would that be the Zeron from the planet Pluto or the Zeron from Atlantis?”

“Oh, the one from Atlantis, of course. You know the Plutonians aren’t telepathic! We communed mentally through his dolphin friends. He said my psychic abilities would improve if I got my aura cleaned.”

Harry’s smirk at life’s stupidity had permanently creased his forehead with an angry gash, but this last remark caused a vein to leap forward. Exasperated, he caught my eye, leaned over, and said in a stage whisper, “Shirley’s gone off the deep end with all that New Age crap.” I uttered a noncommittal grunt, not wishing to get sucked into what appeared to be a long-standing disagreement.

But I did not have the luxury of remaining neutral, for Shirley overheard the remark and righteously replied, “If you just listened to Zeron for once, you wouldn’t be such a skeptic. His words are pure truth!”

“More like pure bull,” he grumbled. “There isn’t a shred of evidence for ESP, telepathy, or any of that hokum. Not one shred.”

She protested: “If you feel it, that’s proof enough. You just live in your head too much.”

Sensing a concession, Harry bellowed, “Your belief about ESP doesn’t mean it’s true! It just says that you believe it’s true. If science hasn’t proved it, then it isn’t true! It’s just superstitious, mythological, folkloric, mumbo-jumbo, mystical crap.”

I couldn’t stand this anymore, so I said, “Excuse me, but I couldn’t help but overhear your conversation. Actually there is quite a bit of scientific evidence for psychic phenomena. They really do exist.”

Shirley smiled beatifically, pressed her palms together, and said “Bless you” with a bow. At the same time, Harry’s expression snapped into such a stupendous grimace, with one eye squeezed tight and the other twitching like a guppy out of water, that I was a little concerned that his head might explode. I quickly added, “On the other hand, regardless of how persuasive your personal psychic experiences may be, science has shown time and again that personal beliefs are often mistaken.”

After my little speech, both of my new acquaintances adopted scowls for different reasons. Shirley’s face wavered between awe and bewilderment, while Harry narrowed his one functioning eye and said suspiciously, “What makes you think you know anything?”

I sighed, realizing that I had just made a mistake. From past experience, I knew that it would take about six hours of discussion about science, history, psychology, and physics just to reach the starting ground of “educated opinion.”

I wanted to explain to Harry and Shirley that what many people think they know about psychic phenomena “ain’t necessarily so.” I wanted to describe how scientists have essentially proven that psi exists, using the same well-accepted experimental methods familiar to scientists in many disciplines. I also wanted to explain why hardly anyone knew this yet. But no one likes a lecture, so instead I wished I just had a book I could hand to them that would explain all this for me.

This is that book.

Preface to the 2009 Edition

WHAT IS NOETIC science? And what does it have to do with psychic phenomena?

Noetic comes from the Greek word noēsis or noētikos, meaning intuition or direct inner knowing. William James, the early 20th-century psychologist from Harvard University, provided a more lyrical definition of noetic as “states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority.”

Science is a systematic means of acquiring knowledge based upon repeated measurements, use of inductive and deductive reasoning, hypothesis formation and testing, consensus review of ideas and data, and development of theoretical explanations.

Noetic science is a branch of science that uses rigorous scientific methods, focused by multidisciplinary scholarship, to study the nature of direct inner knowing and the boundaries between the subjective and the objective. In broad terms, noetic science investigates the role of consciousness in the physical world, and ultimately, the nature of reality.

Most people, most of the time, take for granted that reality is revealed by common sense. This is as true for the general public as it is for most scientists. Common sense tells us that objects are separated from one another in space and time, that reality “out there” is stable and independent of consciousness, that causality is a mechanistic and deterministic process, that time is strictly unidirectional, and so on.

The problem is that this common sense picture of reality is not quite right. In fact, it’s fundamentally wrong. By probing ever deeper into the nature of reality, science has revealed that what we perceive as reality is based upon an exceedingly thin slice of a much greater reality. That other realm, which may be what mystics have tried to describe throughout history, makes our everyday sense of reality seem like a pale shadow. We know that this other realm exists because the neurosciences have shown that our only direct link to reality – conscious awareness – consists of a mere trickle of information as compared to the torrents that are continuously being processed by the nervous system and brain. And studies of visual perception show us that in the process of stopping down this torrent, the brain tricks us into perceiving the world not as it is, but as we expect it to be.

In addition, Einstein discovered that the basic building blocks of reality – space, time, energy and matter – are not as primary as they appear to be, but rather, they’re flexible relationships. Quantum theory tells us that objects are also not as separate as they seem, but mysteriously entangled beyond the boundaries of ordinary space and time. Even our most cherished assumptions about local reality – that the world exists independently of observation – has been experimentally falsified. And if all this were not enough to cause us to seriously question common sense, leading cosmological theories suggest that even our most sophisticated physical theories, which already defy every assumption underlying naïve reality, are themselves based on a mere 4% of the detectable universe. The presence of the 96% of the remaining universe we can only infer, indirectly.

Fortunately, many of our models of reality are good enough for practical purposes. Those models have allowed us to build tools that seduce us into believing that we understand the fundamentals of the universe. Orbiting telescopes, electron microscopes, brainscanners, and other impressive machines assist in consummating the seduction. But the history of science makes one thing crystal clear: Our most sophisticated theories are always special cases of more comprehensive and surprising theories yet to come. So when we set out to probe the boundaries of reality itself, which is the domain of the noetic sciences, it is essential to cultivate tolerance for the unexpected.

And for good reason. The moment we peer through the boundaries of naïve reality we encounter phenomena that mismatch common sense. Such phenomena are labeled anomalous, paradoxical, paranormal, or impossible, depending on how much they challenge prevailing assumptions. One such effect involves a class of human experiences documented throughout history, across all cultures, and at all educational levels. The experiences, known as psychic phenomena, are readily accepted by the majority of the world’s population. In this book we explore how noetic science has investigated these phenomena, and what we have discovered so far.

Dean Radin, PhD

Senior Scientist, Institute of Noetic Sciences

Petaluma, California USA

October 2009


The psyche’s attachment to the brain, i.e., its space-time limitation, is no longer as self-evident and incontrovertible as we have hitherto been led to believe.… It is not only permissible to doubt the absolute validity of space-time perception; it is, in view of the available facts, even imperative to do so.

—Carl Jung, Psychology and the Occult

IN SCIENCE, THE acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In Stage 1, skeptics confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last for years or for centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible but that it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes not only that the idea is important but that its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who previously disavowed any interest in the idea begin to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.

The idea discussed in this book is in the midst of the most important and the most difficult of the four transitions—from Stage 1 into Stage 2. While the idea itself is ancient, it has taken more than a century to demonstrate it conclusively in accordance with rigorous, scientific standards. This demonstration has accelerated Stage 2 acceptance, and Stage 3 can already be glimpsed on the horizon.

The Idea

The idea is that those compelling, perplexing, and sometimes profound human experiences known as “psychic phenomena” are real. This will come as no surprise to most of the world’s population, because the majority already believes in psychic phenomena. But over the past few years, something new has propelled us beyond old debates over personal beliefs. The reality of psychic phenomena is now no longer based solely upon faith, or wishful thinking, or absorbing anecdotes. It is not even based upon the results of a few scientific experiments. Instead, we know that these phenomena exist, because of new ways of evaluating massive amounts of scientific evidence collected over a century by scores of researchers.

Psychic, or “psi,” phenomena fall into two general categories. The first involves perceiving objects or events beyond the range of the ordinary senses. The second is mentally causing action at a distance. In both categories, it seems that intention, the mind’s will, can do things that—according to prevailing scientific theories—it isn’t supposed to be able to do. We wish to know what is happening to loved ones, and somehow, sometimes, that information is available even over large distances. We wish to speed the recovery of a loved one’s illness, and somehow that person gets better quicker, even at a distance. Mind willing, many interesting things appear to be possible.

Understanding such experiences requires an expanded view of human consciousness. Is the mind merely a mechanistic, information-processing bundle of neurons? Is it a “computer made of meat” as some cognitive scientists and neuroscientists believe? Or is it something more? The evidence suggests that while many aspects of mental functioning are undoubtedly related to brain structure and electrochemical activity,1 there is also something else happening, something very interesting.

This Is for Real?

In discussions of the reality of psi phenomena, especially from the scientific perspective, one question always hovers in the background: You mean this is for real? In the midst of all the nonsense and excessive silliness proclaimed in the name of psychic phenomena, the misinformed use of the term “parapsychology” by self-proclaimed “paranormal investigators,” the perennial laughingstock of magicians and conjurers … this is for real?

The short answer is, Yes.

A more elaborate answer is, Psi has been shown to exist in thousands of experiments. There are disagreements over how to interpret the evidence, but the fact is that virtually all scientists who have studied the evidence, including the hard-nosed skeptics, now agree that something interesting is going on that merits serious scientific attention. Later we’ll discuss why very few scientists and science journalists are aware of this dramatic shift in informed opinion.

Shifting Opinions

The most important indication of a shift from Stage 1 to Stage 2 can be seen in the gradually changing attitudes of prominent skeptics. In a 1995 book saturated with piercing skepticism, the late Carl Sagan of Cornell University maintained his lifelong mission of educating the public about science, in this case by debunking popular hysteria over alien abductions, channelers, faith healers, the “face” on Mars, and practically everything else found in the New Age section of most bookstores. Then, in one paragraph among 450 pages, we find an astonishing admission:

At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images “projected” at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.2

Other signs of shifting opinions are cropping up with increasing frequency in the scientific literature. Starting in the 1980s, well-known scientific journals like Foundation of Physics, American Psychologist, and Statistical Science published articles favorably reviewing the scientific evidence for psychic phenomena.3 The Proceedings of the IEEE, the flagship journal of the Institute for Electronic and Electrical Engineers, has published major debates on psi research.4 Invited articles have appeared in the prestigious journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences.5 A favorable article on telepathy research appeared in 1994 in Psychological Bulletin, one of the top-ranked journals in academic psychology.6 And an article presenting a theoretical model for precognition appeared in 1994 in Physical Review, a prominent physics journal.7

In the 1990s alone, seminars on psi research were part of the regular programs at the annual conferences of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Association, and the American Statistical Association. Invited lectures on the status of psi research were presented for diplomats at the United Nations, for academics at Harvard University, and for scientists at Bell Laboratories.

The Pentagon has not overlooked these activities.

From 1981 to 1995, five different U.S. government-sponsored scientific review committees were given the task of examining the evidence for psi effects. The reviews were prompted by concerns that if psi was genuine, it might be important for national security reasons. We would have to assume that foreign governments would exploit psi if they could.

Reports were prepared by the Congressional Research Service, the Army Research Institute, the National Research Council, the Office of Technology Assessment, and the American Institutes for Research (the latter commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency). While disagreeing over fine points of interpretation, all five reviews concluded that the experimental evidence for certain forms of psychic phenomena merited serious scientific study.

For example, in 1981 the Congressional Research Service concluded that “Recent experiments in remote viewing and other studies in parapsychology suggest that there exists an ‘interconnectiveness’ of the human mind with other minds and with matter. This interconnectiveness would appear to be functional in nature and amplified by intent and emotion.”8 The report concluded with suggestions of possible applications for health care, investigative work, and “the ability of the human mind to obtain information as an important factor in successful decision making by executives.”

In 1985 a report prepared for the Army Research Institute concluded that “The bottom line is that the data reviewed in [this] report constitute genuine scientific anomalies for which no one has an adequate explanation or set of explanations.… If they are what they appear to be, their theoretical (and, eventually, their practical) implications are enormous.”9

In 1987 the National Research Council reviewed parapsychology (the scientific discipline that studies psi) at the request of the U.S. Army. The committee recommended that the army monitor parapsychological research being conducted in the former Soviet Union and in the United States, suggested that the army consider funding specific experiments, and most significantly, admitted that it could not propose plausible alternatives to the “psi hypothesis” for some classes of psi experiments. Dr. Ray Hyman, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon and a long-time skeptic of psi phenomena, was chairman of the National Research Council’s review committee on parapsychology. He stated in a 1988 interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education that “Parapsychologists should be rejoicing. This was the first government committee that said their work should be taken seriously.”10

In early 1989 the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report of a workshop on the status of parapsychology. The end of the report stated that “It is clear that parapsychology continues to face strong resistance from the scientific establishment. The question is—how can the field improve its chances of obtaining a fair hearing across a broader spectrum of the scientific community, so that emotionality does not impede objective assessment of the experimental results? Whether the final result of such an assessment is positive, negative, or something in between, the field appears to merit such consideration.”11

In 1995 the American Institutes for Research reviewed formerly classified government-sponsored psi research for the CIA at the request of the U.S. Congress. Statistician Jessica Utts of the University of California, Davis, one of the two principal reviewers, concluded that “The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research … have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud.… It is recommended that future experiments focus on understanding how this phenomenon works, and on how to make it as useful as possible. There is little benefit to continuing experiments designed to offer proof.”12

Surprisingly, the other principal reviewer, skeptic Ray Hyman, agreed: “The statistical departures from chance appear to be too large and consistent to attribute to statistical flukes of any sort.… I tend to agree with Professor Utts that real effects are occurring in these experiments. Something other than chance departures from the null hypothesis has occurred in these experiments.”13

These opinions are even being reflected in the staid realm of college textbooks. One of the most popular books in the history of college publishing is Introduction to Psychology, by Richard L. Atkinson and three coauthors. A portion of the preface in the 1990 edition of this textbook reads: “Readers should take note of a new section in Chapter 6 entitled ‘Psi Phenomena.’ We have discussed parapsychology in previous editions but have been very critical of the research and skeptical of the claims made in the field. And although we still have strong reservations about most of the research in parapsychology, we find the recent work on telepathy worthy of careful consideration.”14

The popular “serious” media have not overlooked this opinion shift. The May 1993 issue of New Scientist, a popular British science magazine, carried a five-page cover story on telepathy research. It opened with the lines, “Psychic research has long been written off as the stuff of cranks and frauds. But there’s now one telepathy experiment that leaves even the sceptics scratching their heads.”15 And in the last few years, Newsweek, the New York Times Magazine, Psychology Today, ABC’s Nightline, national news programs, and television and print media around the world have begun to moderate previously held Stage 1 opinions. They’re now beginning to publish and broadcast Stage 2–type stories that take scientific psi research seriously.16

If all this is true, then a thousand other questions immediately bubble up. Why hasn’t everyone heard about this on the nightly news?17 Why is this topic so controversial? Who has psi? How does it work? What are its implications and applications? These are all good questions, and this book will attempt to answer them through four general themes: Motivation, Evidence, Understanding, and Implications.

Theme 1: Motivation

Why should anyone take psychic phenomena seriously? The answer rests on the strength of the scientific evidence, which stands on its own merits. But to appreciate fully why the scientific case is so persuasive, and why any scientific controversy exists at all, we have to take a slightly circuitous route.

That route will first consider the language used to discuss psi, since much of the confusion about this topic comes from misunderstood and misapplied words (chapter 1). This is followed by examples of common human experiences that provide hints about the existence and nature of psi phenomena (chapter 2). We will then consider the topic of replication, where we will learn what counts as valid scientific evidence (chapter 3). And we’ll end with meta-analysis, where we will see how replication is measured and why it is so important (chapter 4).

In sum, the motivations underlying this scientific exploration can be found in mythology, folktales, religious doctrines, and innumerable personal anecdotes. While sufficient to catch everyone’s attention, stories and personal experiences do not provide the hard, trustworthy evidence that causes scientists to accept confidently that a claimed effect is what it appears to be. Stories, after all, invariably reflect subjective beliefs and faith, which may or may not be true.

Beginning in the 1880s and accumulating ever since, a new form of scientifically valid evidence appeared—empirical data produced in controlled, experimental studies. While not as exciting as folklore and anecdotes, from the scientific perspective these data were more meaningful because they were produced according to well-accepted scientific procedures. Scores of scientists from around the world had quietly contributed these studies.

Today, with more than a hundred years of research on this topic, an immense amount of scientific evidence has been accumulated. Contrary to the assertions of some skeptics, the question is not whether there is any scientific evidence, but “What does a proper evaluation of the evidence reveal?” and “Has positive evidence been independently replicated?”

As we’ll see, the question of replicability—can independent, competent investigators obtain approximately the same results in repeated experiments?—is fundamental to making the scientific case for psi.

Theme 2: Evidence

Theme 2 discusses the main categories of psi experiments and the evidence that the effects seen in these experiments are genuinely replicable. The evidence is based on analysis of more than a thousand experiments investigating various forms of telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychic healing, and psychokinesis (presented in chapters 5 through 9). The evidence for these basic phenomena is so well established that most psi researchers today no longer conduct “proof-oriented” experiments. Instead, they focus largely on “process-oriented” questions like, What influences psi performance? and How does it work?

Also presented are experiments exploring how psi interacts with more mundane aspects of human experience, such as unusual physical effects associated with the “mass mind” of groups of people (chapter 10), psi effects in casino gambling and lottery games (chapter 11), and applications of psi (chapter 12).

Theme 3: Understanding

The wealth of scientific evidence discussed in theme 2 will show that some psi phenomena exist, and that they are probably expressed in more ways than anyone had previously thought. The vast majority of the information used to make this case has been publicly available for years. One might expect then that the growing scientific evidence for genuine psi would have raised great curiosity. Funding would flow, and researchers around the world would be attempting to replicate these effects. After all, the implications of genuine psi are profoundly important for both theoretical and practical reasons. But this has not yet been the case. Few scientists are aware that any scientifically valid case can be made for psi, and fewer still realize that the cumulative evidence is highly persuasive.

In theme 3 we consider why this is so. One reason is that the information discussed here has been suppressed and ridiculed by a relatively small group of highly skeptical philosophers and scientists (chapter 13). Are the skeptics right, and all the scientists reporting successful psi experiments over the past century were simply delusional or incompetent? Or is there another explanation for the skepticism?

We will see that because scientists are also human, the process of evaluating scientific claims is not as pristinely rational or logical as the general public believes (chapter 14). The tendency to adopt a fixed set of beliefs and defend them to the death is incompatible with science, which is essentially a loose confederation of evolving theories in many domains. Unfortunately, this tendency has driven some scientists to continue to defend outmoded, inaccurate worldviews. The tendency is also seen in the behavior of belligerent skeptics who loudly proclaim that widespread belief in psi reflects a decline in the public’s critical thinking ability. One hopes that such skeptics would occasionally apply a little skepticism to their own positions, but history amply demonstrates that science progresses mainly by funerals, not by reason and logic alone.

Understanding why the public has generally accepted the existence of psi and why science has generally rejected it requires an examination of the origins of science (chapter 15). In exploring this clash of beliefs, we will discover that the scientific controversy has had very little to do with the evidence itself, and very much to do with the psychology, sociology, and history of science.

Discussions about underlying assumptions in science rarely surface in skeptical debates over psi, because this topic involves deeply held, often unexamined beliefs about the nature of the world. It is much easier to imagine a potential flaw in one experiment, and use that flaw to cast doubt on an entire class of experiments, than it is to consider the overall results of a thousand similar studies. A related issue is how science deals with anomalies, those extraordinary “damn facts” that challenge mainstream theories.18 As we look at the nature and value of anomalies, and how scientists react to them, we will also explore the role that prejudice, in the literal sense of “prejudging,” has played in controlling what is presumed to be scientifically valid. Other issues, like how scientific disciplines rarely talk to one another, and the historical abyss between science and religion, make it abundantly clear that if psychic experiences were any other form of curious natural phenomena, they would have been adopted long ago by the scientific mainstream on the basis of the evidence alone.

Beyond the themes of motivation, evidence, and understanding, resides the question, So what? Why should anyone care if psi is real or not?

Theme 4: Implications

The eventual scientific acceptance of psychic phenomena is inevitable. The origins of acceptance are already brewing through the persuasive weight of the laboratory evidence. Converging theoretical developments from many disciplines are offering glimpses at ways of understanding how psi works (chapter 16). There are explorations of psi effects by major industrial labs, evaluation of claims of psychic healing by the Office of Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes for Health, and articles about psi research appearing in the “serious” media.

As acceptance grows, the implications of psi will become more apparent. But we already know that these phenomena present profound challenges to many aspects of science, philosophy, and religion (chapter 17). These challenges will nudge scientists to reconsider basic assumptions about space, time, mind, and matter. Philosophers will rekindle the perennial debates over the role of consciousness in the physical world. Theologians will reconsider the concept of divine intervention, as some phenomena previously considered to be miracles will probably become subject to scientific understanding.

These reconsiderations are long overdue. An exclusive focus on what might be called “the outer world” has led to a grievous split between the private world of human experience and the public world as described by science. In particular, science has provided little understanding of profoundly important human concepts like hope and meaning. The split between the objective and the subjective has in the past been dismissed as a nonproblem, or as a problem belonging to religion and not to science.

But this split has also led to major technological blunders, and a rising popular antagonism toward science. This is a pity, because scientific methods are exceptionally powerful tools for overcoming personal biases and building workable models of the “truth.” There is every reason to expect that the same methods that gave us a better understanding of galaxies and genes will also shed light on experiences described by mystics throughout history.

Now let’s explore a little more closely what we’re talking about. What is psi?


What is psi? What does it mean to study the scientific evidence for psi? What counts as scientific evidence? How do we evaluate that evidence?

To answer these questions, we’ll begin by considering what is meant by psi, to help distinguish it from the wild, wacky world of the paranormal. We’ll reflect on how some doubts about psi can be traced to confusions over related words like “supernatural,” and we’ll consider what science is and how it fits into the study of psi.

Next, we’ll read some case studies that provide the motivation for studying whether what seems to be happening in psi experiences is really happening. Can the real-life anecdotes about psi be confirmed under controlled conditions? Then we’ll cover two very important topics—replication and meta-analysis—that will allow us to make sense of the scientific evidence presented in theme 2.


Many errors, of a truth, consist merely in the application of the wrong names of things.

—Baruch Spinoza

SINCE PRIMEVAL TIMES, people have spoken of strange and sometimes profoundly meaningful personal experiences. Such experiences have been reported by the majority of the world’s population and across all cultures. In modern times, they’re still reported by most people, including the majority of college professors. These experiences, called “psychic” or psi, suggest the presence of deep, invisible interconnections among people, and between objects and people. The most curious aspect of psi experiences is that they seem to transcend the usual boundaries of time and space.

For over a century, these very same experiences have been systematically dismissed as impossible, or ridiculed as delusionary, by a small group of influential academics and journalists who have assumed that existing scientific theories are inviolate and complete. This has created a paradox. Many people believe in psi because of their experiences, and yet the defenders of the status quo have insisted that this belief is unjustified.

Paradoxes are extremely important because they point out logical contradictions in assumptions. The first cousins of paradoxes are anomalies, those unexplained oddities that crop up now and again in science. Like paradoxes, anomalies are useful for revealing possible gaps in prevailing theories. Sometimes the gaps and contradictions are resolved peacefully and the old theories are shown to accommodate the oddities after all. But that is not always the case, so paradoxes and anomalies are not much liked by scientists who have built their careers on conventional theories. Anomalies present annoying challenges to established ways of thinking, and because theories tend to take on a life of their own, no theory is going to lie down and die without putting up a strenuous fight.

Though anomalies may be seen as nuisances, the history of science shows that each anomaly carries a seed of potential revolution. If the seed can withstand the herbicides of repeated scrutiny, skepticism, and prejudice, it may germinate. It may then provoke a major breakthrough that reshapes the scientific landscape, allowing new technological and sociological concepts to bloom into a fresh vision of “common sense.”

A long-held, commonsense assumption is that the worlds of the subjective and the objective are distinct, with absolutely no overlap. Subjective is “here, in the head,” and objective is “there, out in the world.” Psi phenomena suggest that the strict subjective-objective dichotomy may instead be part of a continuous spectrum, and that the usual assumptions about space and time are probably too restrictive.

The anomalies fall into three general categories: ESP (extrasensory perception), PK (psychokinesis, or mind-matter interaction), and phenomena suggestive of survival after bodily death, including near-death experiences, apparitions, and reincarnation (see the following definitions and figure 1.1).

Most scientists who study psi today expect that further research will eventually explain these anomalies in scientific terms. It isn’t clear, though, whether they can be fully understood without significant, possibly revolutionary, expansions of the current state of scientific knowledge.


Figure 1.1. The flow of information in telepathy, clairvoyance, and psychokinesis.

What’s in a Name?

In popular usage, psychic phenomena may be defined as follows:

telepathy Information exchanged between two or more minds, without the use of the ordinary senses.

clairvoyance Information received from a distance, beyond the reach of the ordinary senses. A French term meaning “clear-seeing.” Also called “remote viewing.”

psychokinesis Mental interaction with animate or inanimate matter. Experiments suggest that it is more accurate to think of psychokinesis as information flowing from mind to matter, rather than as the application of mental forces or powers. Also called “mind-matter interaction,” “PK,” and sometimes, “telekinesis.”

precognition Information perceived about future events, where the information could not be inferred by ordinary means. Variations include “premonition,” a foreboding of an unfavorable future event, and “presentiment,” a sensing of a future emotion.

ESP Extrasensory perception, a term popularized by J. B. Rhine in the 1930s. It refers to information perceived by telepathy, clairvoyance, or precognition.

psi A letter of the Greek alphabet image used as a neutral term for all ESP-type and psychokinetic phenomena.

Related Phenomena

OBE Out-of-body experience; an experience of feeling separated from the body. Usually accompanied by visual perceptions reminiscent of clairvoyance.

NDE Near-death experience; an experience sometimes reported by those who are revived from nearly dying. Often refers to a core experience that includes feelings of peace, OBE, seeing lights, and certain other phenomena. Related to psi primarily through the OBE experience.

reincarnation The concept of dying and being reborn into a new life. The strongest evidence for this ancient idea comes from children, some of whom recollect verifiable details of previous lives. Related to psi by similarities to clairvoyance and telepathy.

haunting Recurrent phenomena reported to occur in particular locations, including sightings of apparitions, strange sounds, movement of objects, and other anomalous physical and perceptual effects. Related to psi by similarities to psychokinesis and clairvoyance.

poltergeist Large-scale psychokinetic phenomena previously attributed to spirits but now associated with a living person, frequently an adolescent. From the German for “noisy spirit.”

Mistaking the Map for the Territory

Though the terms listed above are in common usage, scientists who study psi try to think about these phenomena in neutrally descriptive terms. This is because popular labels such as “telepathy” carry strong, unstated connotations that cause us to think we understand more than we actually do. As psycholinguists often point out, it’s very easy to mistake the name of the thing for the thing itself. And when we are not clear about what “the thing” is, mistaking the map for the territory can lead to enormous confusions.

Some names also carry hidden theoretical assumptions. For example, some people have imagined that telepathy may literally be a transfer of mental signals from one mind to another. This commonly evokes the image of “mental radio,” which has been proposed by various people over the years, including the author Upton Sinclair, who wrote a famous book by that title.

The concept of “mental radio” naturally suggests that telepathy is based on something like electromagnetic signaling. Brain-wave signals, however, are exceptionally weak, and in cases of telepathy where the “receiver” and “sender” are many miles apart, it is difficult to imagine that anything could detect the infinitesimally tiny signals “broadcast” from the sender. Still, because psi does not fit easily into conventional theories, researchers have repeatedly put the “electromagnetic” theories to the test. The results show that when telepathic receivers are isolated by heavy-duty electromagnetic and magnetic shielding (specially constructed rooms with steel and copper walls), or by extreme distance, they are still able to obtain information from a sender without using the ordinary senses.

So we know that telepathy doesn’t work like conventional electromagnetic signaling. And yet, because the metaphor provides a powerful way of thinking about telepathy, many people still imagine that telepathy “works” through some form of mental radio.

Besides the problems that can arise from taking labels too literally, the strength of the evidence for various categories of psi varies widely. Simply labeling an effect without qualification tends to give the false impression that all these phenomena stand on equally firm scientific ground, and this is not the case.

Keep in mind that the names and concepts used to describe psi say more about the situations in which the phenomena are observed than about any fundamental properties of the phenomena themselves. This is always true in science but is often glossed over for the sake of simplicity. Depending on what we wish to measure, a photon can be either a wave or a particle. We may call it one thing or the other, but that does not change what it “really” is: something that is neither a wave nor a particle, but apparently both at once.

In addition, in scientific practice many of the basic terms for psi effects are accompanied by strings of qualifiers such as “apparent,” “putative,” and “ostensible.” This is because many claims supposedly involving psi may not be caused by psi, but by normal psychological or misinterpreted physical factors. Here we avoid the repetitive use of qualifiers because they can become monotonous. But it is useful to remember that science deals with hypotheses, theories, and models, and not with absolutes. Every scientific concept carries some qualification.

What Are We Talking About?

Psi research continues to be controversial partly because of confusion about the term “paranormal.” The common view of the paranormal, especially as reflected in the popular media, is of anything bizarre, occult, or mysterious. In this view, ESP, telepathy, and precognition are lumped together with “bleeding” statues, alien abductions, and five headed toads.

Other terms commonly used to refer to all things strange include supernatural, psi, psychic, parapsychological, mystical, esoteric, occult, and for some unfathomable reason, “PSI,” pronounced letter by letter, p, s, i, as though that meant something. (It doesn’t in this context.)

The indiscriminate mixing of these terms has led to vast misunderstandings. There really is a difference between the scientific study of psi phenomena and, say, the belief that Elvis has reincarnated into a forty-pound zucchini that bears a striking resemblance to the late King of Rock and Roll. To clarify precisely what is meant by the phrase “scientific study of psi phenomena” and to prepare for the concept of replication in science, we must briefly consider five concepts: paranormal, supernatural, mystical, science, and the scientific method.

This review may seem a bit tedious, especially when compared with the fun stories about psychic experiences coming up in the next chapter. Surely we can skip all this worrying about words. Possibly, but consider that all a book can offer is a bunch of words, so a clear understanding of some key words now will become progressively more important later. Think of it like brushing your teeth. You don’t really want to brush your teeth every single day, but if you don’t, somewhere down the line you won’t have anything left to brush. No brushing, no teeth. No words, no understanding. Simple.


Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines paranormal as “beyond the range of scientifically known phenomena.” Note that this definition does not specify psychic phenomena per se, so paranormal can be used to refer to any unexplained, but potentially explainable, phenomenon. Also note that the definition uses the phrase “scientifically known,” which itself raises a rather complicated issue involving the scientific method and the nature of evidence and proof in science. For now, let us take paranormal to mean something like “beyond the range of phenomena presently accepted by most scientists.”

Many subjects now considered perfectly legitimate areas of scientific inquiry, including hypnosis, dreams, hallucinations, and subliminal perception, were relegated to the wackiest fringes of the paranormal in the late nineteenth century. A few hundred years before that, topics like physics, astronomy, and chemistry were so far out that those who merely dabbled in them risked accusations of heresy, or worse.

This simply points out that science, like most other things, is part of an evolutionary process: odd events considered paranormal eventually become normal after satisfactory scientific explanations are developed. In this sense—although some scientists would probably shudder at the analogy—virtually all cutting-edge, basic research can be viewed as the systematic practice of probing and explaining the paranormal.