ANOMALISTIC PSYCHOLOGY
Introduction
Anomalous experience means something that is irregular and doesn’t fit into existing
scientific explanations. The term is used to refer to paranormal or psi phenomenon e.g. ESP
(extrasensory perception), PK (psychokinesis), psychic healing and out of body experiences.
Parapsychologists – accept paranormal events occur and try and find evidence to support this
belief. Claim to be a science
Anomalistic psychologists – tend to be sceptical about the phenomena and work on the
assumption they can be explained in terms of known psychological and physical factors.
Claim it is a pseudoscience.
Learning objectives
To understand the scientific process. (part 2 and 3)
To know the main features of science (part 2 and 3)
To recognise the differences between science and pseudoscience
To be able to explain why being scientific is important
SCIENTIFIC PROCESS
INDUCTION
DEDUCTION
Observations
Observations
Testable hypothesis
Propose theory
Testable hypothesis
Conduct a study to test
the hypothesis
refine
Conduct a study to test the
hypothesis
Draw conclusions
refine
Draw conclusions
Propose theory
INDUCTION Reasoning from the particular to the general. E.g. Newton’s Laws
DEDUCTION Reasoning from the general to the particular. E.g. Darwin. The hypotheticodeductive model was proposed by Karl Popper, suggesting that theories/laws about the
world should come first and these should be used to generate expectations/hypotheses
which can be falsified. (can never ‘prove’ a hypothesis right but one piece of evidence can
prove it wrong).
FUNDEMENTALLY SCIENCE IS METHODOLOGICAL!
SCIENCE METHOD AND PSEUDOSCIENCE
Similarities
Both use similar methods to test hypotheses.
Both pick and choose what area to study
Characteristic
Replicability
Objectivity
Controls
Probability
Science
Another person should be
able to repeat study in same
way and get same result. One
study is not enough to claim
cause and effect
Verified by unbiased
measurements
Eliminates confounding
variables
Falsifiability
5% level generally used but
still possible results due to
chance, so possibility of Type
1 error
Falsifiable
Burden of proof
On researcher
Pseudoscience
Only some ‘experimenters’
can get the results
Problem of experimenter
effects
Often biased /subjective
Significant results have been
found but critics have
claimed controls inadequate.
When controls greater results
not significant.
Batcheldor “psi – seems to
avoid those positions in time
and space when we are
actively looking for it”
same
No circumstances which can
falsify claims only reasons to
explain away results or lack
of e.g. presence of psi
inhibitors (sceptics) wrong
time of day etc. If cannot be
falsified is not a science. (N.b.
Freud is not falsifiable)
Up to sceptics to disprove
Publication
Results peer reviewed before
publication
Procedure
Formulates hypotheses and
information then gathers
data
Uses methodological
pluralism
Construct explanations for
observations made – may
result in alternative
explanation
Method
Aim
Often direct to public –
avoids critical assessment
Problem of selective
reporting ‘file drawer
problem’ (don’t include non
significant results)
Formulated hypotheses to fit
data
Picks method to get the data
wanted
Often offer no explanation. If
results disprove theory
method criticised. Despite
lack of evidence explanations
remain unchanged
Ways of thinking- pseudoscience






Anachronistic – uses theories that may be outdated or not proven to support the
research
Look for mysteries – test phenomena that may happen uses superstitions. Science
tests phenomena that actually happen
Appeal to myths to support theories i.e. not empirical testing
Grab bag approach – quantity not quality
Not consistent with known facts. Science is and follows rules of logic
PA (Parapsychological Association) became an affiliated member of AAAS (American
Association for the Advancement of Science) in 1969 thus appearing to confirm its
scientific status.
Why does it matter
People make money out of false claims. We should ask for evidence not just follow
trends/superstitions e.g. persecution of witches. Thorough research could lead to valuable
discoveries e.g. acupuncture.
Why do we need scientific method







We prefer stories to facts
We seek to confirm, not to question, our ideas
We sometimes misperceive the world around us e.g. psychic illusions
We rarely appreciate the role of chance and coincidence – probability misjudgement
Law of truly large numbers
We tend to oversimplify our thinking
We have faulty memories