ESP and Science

ESP and science has a long and complicated relationship spanning decades. Here’s the strongest scientific evidence for ESP, based on decades of research by reputable (but controversial) figures in parapsychology. It is unfortunate that Al G Manning wasn’t more visible during these trials and research which gave ESP a firmer footing in the science world.

🔍 1.  Ganzfeld Experiments (Telepathy)

Key Researcher: Charles Honorton (1980s), later Daryl Bem & Dean Radin

• Setup: One person (the “receiver”) sits in a sensory-reduced environment (e.g., with white noise and halved ping-pong balls over their eyes) to encourage a relaxed, meditative state. Another person (the “sender”) attempts to mentally transmit an image or video clip.
• Results: In well-controlled trials, receivers guessed the correct target about 32% of the time, where 25% would be expected by chance.
• Meta-analyses (Honorton & Bem, 1994; Storm et al., 2010) concluded:
  • Over hundreds of trials, effect sizes were small but statistically significant (p < 0.01).
  • This suggests something beyond random guessing.

✅ Why it matters: The Ganzfeld protocol aimed to address criticisms of earlier ESP studies by using strict blinding, automation, and randomization.

🔮 2. Precognition Studies (Feeling the Future)

Key Researcher: Daryl Bem (Cornell University, 2011)

• Setup: In 9 experiments, students guessed where erotic or neutral images would appear, or what words would later be tested—before the stimulus was actually chosen by a computer.
• Claimed Results: In some cases, participants performed better than chance, even though the future event hadn’t occurred yet.
• Bem’s interpretation: Human consciousness might be “non-linear” in time.

✅ Why it matters: Bem published his findings in a peer-reviewed psychology journal (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology), sparking widespread attention. ESP and science re-enter the spotlight of public interest.

🧪 Caveat: Multiple replication attempts failed, but Bem and others argued the failures were due to differences in setup or motivation.

🌐 3.  PEAR Lab (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research)

Key Researcher: Robert Jahn (former Dean of Engineering at Princeton)

• Focus: Psychokinesis and ESP using random number generators (RNGs).
• Method: Participants tried to mentally influence machines that output random 1s and 0s.
• Results: Over millions of trials, small deviations from chance were reported, consistent with intentional mental influence.

✅ Why it matters: The lab operated at a prestigious university for decades and published decades of consistent data suggesting tiny but statistically significant effects.

📘 4.  Dean Radin’s Meta-Analyses

Other Books:

The Conscious Universe (1997), 

Entangled Minds (2006)

• Dean Radin, a former Bell Labs scientist, compiled meta-analyses of thousands of ESP experiments.
• Claimed that:
  • ESP effects are statistically real, though subtle.
  • Rejection by mainstream science is more about philosophy (materialism) than data.
• Cites over 1000 studies, claiming consistent small effects with p-values far beyond chance.

✅ Why it matters: Radin’s statistical approach seeks to show that ESP is not one-off—it emerges when looking at many experiments together.

🧠 5. Quantum Consciousness Theories

While not evidence, some physicists (e.g., Roger Penrose) and parapsychologists propose that quantum mechanics could explain ESP by:

• Nonlocality (instantaneous connection over distance)
• Entanglement of consciousness and matter
• A yet-unknown role for consciousness in quantum collapse

✅ Why it matters: These ideas provide a possible framework in which ESP might be physically real—though speculative and unproven.

⚖️ Summary: Best Evidence for ESP and science.

Author: Howard Sherman