In the Light of Occam's Razor: A Critical Analysis of Parapsychology

In the Light of Occam’s Razor:
A Critical Analysis of Parapsychology
Dylan Martin
Massachusetts Academy of Math and Science
Science, as the pursuit of knowledge, must be limited to only the most logical interpretations of
the body of data. William of Ockham, a fourteenth century Franciscan monk came to this
limiting conclusion in his studies: Entia non sunt multiplicanda prater necessitatum, Entities
should not be multiplied beyond necessity. This idiom, commonly referred to as Occam’s razor
or the law of parsimony, is used to separate the legitimate spheres of scientific study from those
based upon fraudulent claims. For any apparent phenomenon, the most basic causes must first
be considered, thus any field of study that eagerly accepts outlandish claims may be discredited.
As is implied by the name of this agent of logic, assumptions that fall outside of the narrow
range of reason are shaved from the mainstream of science. Through this principle, questionable
realms of thought may be critically analyzed and effectively qualified as valid or irrational.
One theory that may be scrutinized with the razor is that of parapsychology. The
expansive study of this field, also known as psi, encompasses such pursuits as the investigation
of telepathy and psychokinesis. The study of such occurrences began in the late nineteenth
century with the creation of the Society for Psychical Research in the United Kingdom. This
organization attempted to begin the statistical analysis of what its members believed to be acts of
the supernatural, publishing texts that are referenced in parapsychological literature to this day.
The members of this society acted as the promulgators of this field, exploring areas including
telepathy, hypnotism, haunts, and apparitions (“Parapsychology”, n.d.). The study of these
phenomena then spread throughout the western world, with multiple major American institutions
adopting this interest and Joseph B. Rhine becoming the perpetuator of this illogical science.
Rhine attempted to move from the qualitative assessments of the past to more concrete
measurements of the so-called transcendent abilities of the mind, but his conclusions have been
widely criticized.
Although the major researchers of this field do not parallel perfectly the description of
hermit scientists as enumerated in the writings of Martin Gardner, their works must be
scrutinized using the law of parsimony due to their non-scientific constitution (Shermer, 2010).
Rhine and his colleagues have been accused of reporting incomplete results of testing to uphold
their biased hypotheses, and several of his laboratory assistants were caught participating in
dishonest scientific practices. Additionally, skeptics claim that even Rhine himself was not able
to duplicate the results of his initial testing (“Joseph Banks Rhine”, n.d.). The pseudoscientists
of this field have been jettisoned from mainstream psychological study. They have bivouacked
themselves just outside of legitimate science, operating in autonomous departments of research
institutions and publishing in independent journals.
Placed into the crucible of modern science, parapsychology is reduced to an
amalgamation of circumstantial evidence, yet its subscribers continue to build upon this fractured
foundation. The major conclusions that allegedly confirm the occurrence of parapsychological

activity fall to mere supposition when viewed through the lens of Occam’s razor. The largest of
these assumptions was that made by J. B. Rhine in his study of extrasensory perception (ESP).
To examine the existence of what he believed to be psi phenomena, Rhine conducted tests in
which subjects attempted to guess the order of cards in a set on which was inscribed one of five
symbols. Over 90,000 of these tests were completed, and from the gathered data, this
investigator asserted that ESP is a real and quantifiable happening (Rhine, 1973). This
conclusion was based upon a small number of test subjects who were able to guess a larger
percentage of the cards correctly than statistical chance predicted. Such data does not tend to
show the absolute truth of the hypothesized occurrence, as it is not a preponderance of the
evidence and makes unjustifiable leaps to outlandish explanations. Adhering to the law of
parsimony, there are various potential explanations for these statistical anomalies with the first
being simple chance. With such a large number of tests performed, it is likely that some data
points will lie outside of the predicted average. Furthermore, dishonesty in experimental
procedure could very likely account for these outliers in the data. Greater than ten individuals
who assisted Rhine were found to be involved in fraudulent activities, yet their names were never
released and data gathered with their involvement was used to arrive at the final, bold statement.
Such simple interpretations of the data place the idea of metaphysical happenings far beyond the
scope of veritable science.
A second tenet in the field of parapsychology is the belief in the supernatural importance
of near-death experiences. By definition, a so-called near-death experience occurs when an
individual comes close to death or experiences clinical death and is revived; many of those who
have been in such a state report feeling elation and seeing the image of a light forming at the end
of a tunnel (“Near-Death Experiences”, n.d.). Men and women of the pseudoscientific world
have attributed these feelings to a variety of phenomena including the journey to a realm of life
after death and have offered these qualitative observations as evidence of the professed afterlife.
These individuals have strived to make scientific claims based solely upon the vague accounts of
those who underwent such trauma, and thus base what they believe to be rational conclusions
upon questionable, second-hand observations.
In addition to this fundamental error in the scientific reasoning behind parapsychologists’
explanation for these visions, the religious and paranormal associations of near-death
experiences are inane when viewed in the light of Occam’s razor. A plethora of simple,
scientifically accepted causes for these commonly reported sensations exist. The first of these
elucidations is that humans close to death often enter a state of shock, in which they may
experience delirium and impaired sensory perception, hence the sight of a small amount of light
and feeling of euphoria. Another logical cause of contentment and unusual visions during a
near-death experience are the potential physical ailments that caused a person to enter an infirm
state. Two common conditions that cause death or near-death are brain trauma and severe blood
loss, both of which can cause impaired mental abilities and altered visual perspective. These
explanations for the sensations of near-death experiences are significantly more parsimonious to
the conventions of science, and thus must be considered before the miraculous contrivances of
parapsychologists.

The study of parapsychology, while intriguing, cannot stand to meet the demands of
Occam’s razor. When the conclusions and core beliefs of its various branches are viewed
through the enlightening perspective of this law of logic, they are found to be illogical and
beyond the scope of a legitimate science. Due to grossly erroneous scientific procedure and
leaps to conclusions that ignore the most basic explanations, the field of psi cannot be regarded
in the body of well-founded scientific knowledge and must be removed from all empirical
thought. The law of parsimony requires all who seek to pursue sensible science to regard
parapsychology as a pseudoscience.
Literature Cited
About Near-Death Experiences. (n.d.) Retreived on December 11, 2012 from http://iands.org
Joseph Banks Rhine. (n.d.) Retrieved on December 11, 2012 from http://wikipedia.org
Parasychology. (n.d.) Retrieved on December 10, 2012 from http://wikipedia.org
Rhine, J.B. (1973). Extra-Sensory Perception. Boston: Braden Publishing Company.
Shermer, M. (2010, May 23). Hermits and Cranks: Lessons from Martin Gardner on
Recognizing Pseudoscientists [electronic version]. Scientific American, Retrieved
December 11, 2012 from http://scientificamerican.com