Reviewed by Nemo C. Mörck
Terence Hines (b. 1951) is a Professor of Psychology at Pace University, New York. Hines is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and “one of the world’s foremost authorities on the science of pseudoscience” according to Stephen Hupp, Editor of the Skeptical Inquirer. His book, The Psychology and Science of Pseudoscience, is a new edition of his previous book, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, first published in 1988, and the second edition in 2003. When Hines was young, he was fascinated by the paranormal and I imagine that he still is in a way, given his publications in the Skeptical Inquirer. However, Ray Hyman introduced him to the psychology behind false beliefs: “Research on the cognitive biases and illusions that lead to belief in things paranormal and pseudoscientific ... it is this research that forms the core ideas of this book” (p. xiii). The book covers basically everything that one finds treated with appropriate scepticism in Skeptical Inquirer, and more: astrology, faith healing, firewalking, homeopathy, parapsychology (3 chapters), and ufology (2 chapters). It is thus a hefty book. The PDF I received to review consists of 364 pages, including index and references. I read the Introduction and the chapters about parapsychology.
This book serves as a reminder that parapsychology, to sceptics, in the grander scheme of things, is small fry. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) changed its name to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) in 2006, and not without reason. Hines has helped me understand the sceptical position. The sceptics wish to educate and protect the public. Faith healing, psychic surgery, and alternative medicine are, arguably, far more concerning to them than parapsychologists studying precognitive dreams. However, perhaps they fear that widespread paranormal belief could one day lead to new witch crazes (p. 22). In general, they focus less on what parapsychologists would argue is evidential and more on what attracts public attention, such as mediums and psychic detectives who frequently appear on TV.
The book can be read by curious laymen because Hines tends to explain well and shares relatable anecdotes. He elaborates on fraud, covers fraudulent psychic readings and metal-bending well, and relates enough for the reader to, in the name of science, learn what to do and think about. As noted, Hines also covers much more than parapsychology. Images, mainly from Wikipedia, are included.
Hines argues “… in these times of misinformation and denial of facts, I think it is especially important to back up one’s contentions with specific references” (p. xiv). However, he does not always remember to do so. This is a rather typical sceptical book that uncritically regurgitates what sceptics have written before.
Hines complains that sceptics are often accused of being closed-minded and claims: “As a scientist, I can specify exactly the type of evidence I would require to make me change my mind ...” (p. 2). Later he goes on to argue, in line with Carl Sagan and Marcello Truzzi, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is subjective, but a reasonable stance. It also makes sense for Hines to argue that the burden of proof rests on the one making the extraordinary claim. However, within the scientific community, the burden of proof is on the claimant. If you argue that there are statistical errors in a study you should be prepared to demonstrate it. This is not shifting the burden of proof. Confident unsupported assertions may impress laymen but should not convince scientists.
Much of what Hines relates about Spiritualism should be familiar. He has relied on Hyman’s (1985) overview. Hines briefly covers the Fox sisters, Michael Faraday’s experiments, and Ouija boards (concerning the last, he recommends Bullshit, season 1, episode 12). Hines acknowledges that some mediums “experienced what appeared to be genuine trances” (p. 28), but famous trance mediums like Leonora Piper are never mentioned. Instead, we are presented with Hélène Smith, equally interesting but Hines fails if he wished to cover the evidence for survival after death presented by Spiritualists. His commentary about fraud is more rewarding, but I wonder how familiar he actually is with the literature: “In spite of years of attempts, no medium was ever able to give the code” (p. 31) that Harry Houdini wished to convey after his death. The controversy provoked by Arthur Ford’s spirit control Fletcher that allegedly delivered the code is well known (e.g., Spraggett with Rauscher, 1973).
Hines admits: “Many reports ... remain to my knowledge without specific explanations” (p. 33) yet argues that this does not mean that spiritualist phenomena lack normal explanations. He trusts Houdini (1924) and Brandon (1983): “when rigorous experimental conditions that truly excluded cheating were imposed on mediums no spiritualistic phenomena were seen” (p. 34). Hines is aware of some of the more recent research with mediums, but cites sceptics’ criticisms and remains unconvinced.
Hines argues: “In the investigation of any type of psychic, a magician is best able to spot the tricks ...” (p. 34) then he goes on to cover mediumistic fraud and psychic readings. He then shift focus to modern celebrity mediums such as James Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, and John Edward. Nostradamus known for his vague prophecies is also an easy target. Since psychic detectives are often on TV and in newspapers they also get his attention. Hines complains about the media’s “cavalier attitude toward the truth” (p. 47) and notes that misleading stories are often never corrected. He relates the results of investigations by fellow sceptics to show that psychic detectives are never useful.
His focus then shift to precognitive experiences and I experienced déjà vu when I read his coverage of the law of truly large numbers. Of course, we all have many dreams throughout our lives and even if we remember few statistically unlikely coincidences are bound to occur now and then. Hines also notes that dreams lack an expiration date and hence can come to be associated with an event far in the future by chance. It is hard to disagree with his general reasoning.
Hines notes that a classic example of a coincidence is: “to be thinking of someone and, minutes later, have them call or otherwise make contact” (p. 52). Hines does not regard this as evidence of telepathy and does not acknowledge the existence of research on telephone telepathy. In fact, Rupert Sheldrake is never mentioned in the book.
Predictable TV shows featuring ghost hunters becomes subject to deserved criticism and Hines covers normal explanations for ghostly experiences. In passing, Romer (2013) has conducted a replication attempt of the study by Houran and Lange (1996). The two haunted houses that get most space are the Borley Rectory and the “Amityville Horror” house — I guess due to the attention they got. Hines does not seem to have realised that Dingwall, Goldney, and Hall (1955) published their findings concerning the Borley Rectory in the Proceedings of the SPR first (accessible through Lexscien). More recently O’Connor (2022) has examined the case again.
Hines does not cover the Enfield poltergeist case. Instead he presents a dated coverage of the poltergeist agent Tina Resch. Hines translates the German word poltergeist into “playful spirit” rather than “noisy spirit” (p. 64) and asserts: “The vast majority of the thousands of poltergeist reports that have accumulated over the years are of mild, even humorous, events such as objects moving about when no one is watching, breaking of crockery, spontaneous small fires, and showers of pebbles and small stones ...” (p. 64). Hines attempts to cover out-of-body experiences (OBEs), near-death experiences (NDEs), and reincarnation too. In passing, since he cites Rawlings (1978) — I recommend Sabom (1996). Hines believes that all these phenomena have normal rather than paranormal explanations: “When all is said and done, the evidence for ghosts, OBEs, NDEs ... in no way, shape, or form adds up to anything even close to support for the reality of any sort of disembodied spirit ...” (p. 69).
Hines is not a bad writer and his overviews are informative, though biased. His bias becomes more evident when he attempts to cover laboratory parapsychology. There are many errors, misleading statements, and unsupported assertions in his overview. Hines forgets that ESP includes telepathy and writes that clairvoyance rather than precognition refers to “the ability to see into the future” (p. 76). The studies by J. B. Rhine and his colleagues are criticised with general commentary. The fraudulent S. G. Soal is also given extensive coverage (see West & Markwick, 2018). Admittedly, there were problems with the commercial Zener cards — Dingwall (1937) initiated correspondence about this in the Journal of the SPR. However, the entire overview is dated. For example, Hines trusts C. E. M. Hansel but never cites the third edition of his book (Hansel, 1989).
Hines claims that Skolnick “found that New Yorkers were not winning the lottery at a rate higher than chance” (p. 79). His source is personal communication with Skolnick in 1985. Evidently, Hines feels no need to back up his claims.
Given all the attention Uri Geller has received it was inevitable that Hines should also focus on him: “Geller turned out to be nothing more than a magician using sleight of hand and considerable personal charm to fool his admirers” (p. 81). Hines explains metal-bending in sufficient detail for someone to learn to do it — in a normal way. He asserts that Marks and Kammann (1980) conducted “thirty-five studies” (p. 86) — they conducted thirty-five trials not studies — attempting to replicate the results reported by Targ and Puthoff (1977). Hines also covers the criticism of the methodological problems with the early remote viewing studies conducted by Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff. However, he writes as if the evidence for remote viewing depends on just their early work. The Star Gate programme is never mentioned.
Hines translates the German word ganzfeld into “blank field” rather than “whole field” (p. 87) and ends his overview with Milton and Wiseman (1999). He appears to be unaware of dream ESP research conducted after the Maimonides dream lab closed, hence his review of this line of research ends with Child (1985). Parenthetically, Helmut Schmidt started using random number generators in the 1960s not in the 1980s. Hines asserts:
... there were problems with the control trials that Schmidt used. These were series of trials during which the random number generator was generating random numbers but no subjects were making attempts to predict what its output would be. This is an absolutely necessary procedure ... (p. 89).
Some of the controversy evoked by Bem (2011) is also covered, and Hines only mentions failed replication attempts. He has read Reber and Alcock (2020), but his overview is dated and misleading. For example, Hines asserts: “According to synchronicity, there is no such thing as a coincidence” (p. 96). Towards the end of his overview he remarks:
Alcock (1985) has persuasively argued that for many, but certainly not all, parapsychologists the search for psi has become an almost religious quest, a quest to dethrone materialistic science and reestablish the dominance of a spiritual approach to the world (p. 96).
I have only read the first four chapters, but I would be happy to recommend this book to those who enjoy reading just one side of an argument. Sceptics who wish to learn more about parapsychology may consider starting with Marks (2020) instead. However, their books were written with different goals in mind and Hines covers much more. In addition, Marks tries to give the reader the impression that he has been fair. In contrast, perhaps Hines just wishes to assert the sceptical position. Nevertheless, his book is informative and much is worth reading, though I suggest that it should be treated as a start to a search for the truth rather than as a final answer.
References
Alcock, J. E. (1985). Parapsychology: The “spiritual” science. Free Inquiry, 5(2), 25-35.
Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 100(3), 407-425.
Brandon, R. (1983). The spiritualists: The passion for the occult in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Child, I. L. (1985). Psychology and anomalous observations: The question of ESP in dreams. American Psychologist, 40(11), 1219-1230.
Dingwall, E. J. (1937). [Letter to the Editor]. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 30, 140-141.
Dingwall, E. J., Goldney, K. M., & Hall, H. H. (1955). The haunting of Borley Rectory: A critical survey of the evidence. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 51, 1-180.
Hansel, C. E. M. (1989). The search for psychic power: ESP and parapsychology revisited. Prometheus Books.
Houdini, H. (1924). A magician among the spirits. Harper & Row
Houran, J., & Lange, R. (1996). Diary of events in a thoroughly unhaunted house. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 83(2), 499-502.
Hyman, R. (1985). A critical overview of parapsychology. In P. Kurtz (Ed.), A skeptic’s handbook of parapsychology (pp. 3-96). Prometheus Books.
Marks, D. F. (2020). Psychology and the paranormal: Exploring anomalous experience. SAGE Publishing.
Marks, D., & Kammann, R. (1980). The psychology of the psychic. Prometheus Books.
Milton, J., & Wiseman, R. (1999). Does psi exist? Lack of replication of an anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin,125(4), 387-391.
O’Conner, S. (2022). The haunting of Borley Rectory: The story of a ghost story. Simon & Schuster.
Rawlings, M. (1978). Beyond death’s door. Thomas Nelson.
Reber, A. S., & Alcock, J. E. (2020). Searching for the impossible: Parapsychology’s elusive quest. American Psychologist, 75(3), 391-399.
Romer, C. J. (2013, 23 January). Re-investigating un-haunted houses. https://jerome23.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/re-investigating-un-haunted-houses/
Sabom, M. B. (1996). [Review of the book To hell and back: Life after death-startling new evidence, by M. S. Rawlings]. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 14(3), 197-209.
Spraggett, A., with Rauscher, W. A. (1973). Arthur Ford: The man who talked with the dead. New American Library.
Targ, R., & Puthoff, H. (1977). Mind reach: Scientists look at psychic abilities. Delacorte Press.
West, D. J., & Markwick, B. (2018). Dr Soal: A psychic enigma. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, 60, 1-172.