Science and Spiritualism

The intention of this article is to highlight some points in history when the paths of science and Spiritualism have crossed. I thought it would be interesting to look back at events which are recorded in history to see if there is anything to learn from them.

Having experienced cynical sceptics who would have me believe that science was the truth and Spiritualism was firmly in the realms of fantasy, I had remained a faithful Spiritualist purely on the strength of the wonderful, and hard to ignore, evidence given by Spiritualist mediums.
Ask a sceptic and they might tell you that the anecdotal evidence of mediumship is not enough to provide proof that spirits exist. To be fair it is not a mediums job to prove anything to the sceptics. But hey, I'm not a medium.

Susan Boyle says she's been visited by her mother Bridget's ghost

A CHART-topping singer says she's been visited by the ghost of her dead mother. Susan Boyle, 50, was left bereft when Bridget Boyle died in 2007 at the age of 91.

The pair shared the same home in Blackburn, West Lothian, in Scotland, for all of Boyle's life
And it's there she claims her mother appeared to her.
"The council house is my mother's house. Her energy is still there," Boyle told The Sun.
"I've actually seen my mother in the house. I think she was letting me know she was all right.
"There was a lovely smell. Perhaps it was her perfume, I'm not sure.
"I used to think she'd abandoned me when she died. Maybe she was telling me she hadn't."
The record-breaking songbird, who shot to fame on Britain's Got Talent two years ago, has also revealed how she feels plagued by feelings of isolation.
"My biggest problem is I feel lonely, especially at night," she continued.
"I always had a fear of being alone and now I am.

Spirit Photography-Actual Spirits Caught on Film!

Gordon Smith - the "psychic barber"

Gordon Smith - the "psychic barber" - contacts "the other world"

Scientist Proves ESP Is Real

From the New York Times :


Prof Bem

One of psychology’s most respected journals has agreed to publish a paper presenting what its author describes as strong evidence for extrasensory perception, the ability to sense future events.

The decision may delight believers in so-called paranormal events, but it is already mortifying scientists. Advance copies of the paper, to be published this year in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, have circulated widely among psychological researchers in recent weeks and have generated a mixture of amusement and scorn.

The paper describes nine unusual lab experiments performed over the past decade by its author, Daryl J. Bem, an emeritus professor at Cornell, testing the ability of college students to accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a photograph on the left or right side of its screen. The studies include more than 1,000 subjects.

Some scientists say the report deserves to be published, in the name of open inquiry; others insist that its acceptance only accentuates fundamental flaws in the evaluation and peer review of research in the social sciences.

“It’s craziness, pure craziness. I can’t believe a major journal is allowing this work in,” Ray Hyman, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University Oregon and longtime critic of ESP research, said. “I think it’s just an embarrassment for the entire field.”

The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said the paper went through the journal’s regular review process. “Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript,” he said, “and these are very trusted people.”

All four decided that the paper met the journal’s editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even though “there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results.”

But many experts say that is precisely the problem. Claims that defy almost every law of science are by definition extraordinary and thus require extraordinary evidence. Neglecting to take this into account — as conventional social science analyses do — makes many findings look far more significant than they really are, these experts say.

“Several top journals publish results only when these appear to support a hypothesis that is counterintuitive or attention-grabbing,” Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, a psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, wrote by e-mail. “But such a hypothesis probably constitutes an extraordinary claim, and it should undergo more scrutiny before it is allowed to enter the field.”…

[continues in the New York Times]