Scientific Method: Beischel excerpt #7

Julie Beischel writes in “Beyond Reasonable: Scientific Evidence for Survival,” her prize-winning essay in the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies competition:

The scientific method is clear. Step 1: observe. Step 2: Formulate a Hypothesis

After observing mediums make statements about discarnates, I can ask, “Are those statements correct? Do they accurately reflect reality?” To develop a hypothesis, I created a positive statement about mediums, discarnates, and sitters predicting reality and based on my observations. The statement needed to be falsifiable: that is, it must be possible for the assertion it makes to be refuted with evidence. The hypothesis was: The information about discarnates reported by mediums is accurate and specific. It is possible for that falsifiable hypothesis to be disproven. Again, I didn’t expect 100% perfection. And rather than use arbitrary assumptions about what would be impressive, I used established statistical methods to objectively determine if the information was actually accurate and specific. Testing the hypothesis allowed me to acquire new knowledge about an aspect of nature. That is the aim of science.

Conjecturing about a phenomenon and then performing experiments based on assumptions does not qualify as science. Any direction starting with, “I wonder if a medium could...” is most likely not a scientific pursuit. I can’t wonder if mediums can report lottery numbers and then ask them to buy a ticket and call that science. That’s not something that they regularly do, and thus it can’t be observed during Step 1. If one observes the mediumistic triad as it exists in nature and then thinks, “Well, then mediums should also be able to [blank]” without ever observing them [blank]ing, no science is happening.

Step 3: Design an Experiment

From the beginning, I knew that in order to appropriately test the hypothesis that the information about discarnates reported by mediums is accurate and specific, two equally important factors of the experiment were necessary. Ideally, laboratory-based mediumship research should include: (a) a research environment that optimizes the mediumship process for both the medium and the discarnate and (b) research methods that maximize the experimental blinding of the medium, the rater, and the experimenters in order to eliminate all conventional explanations for the reported information and its accuracy and specificity.

Without these factors in place, we really won’t know anything more about mediumship after the experiment than we did before it so any results would be meaningless. I have used different analogies to demonstrate this point over the years:

• You can’t study football on a baseball field using hockey equipment and the rules for soccer and then claim you’ve disproven the existence of football.

• You can’t place an acorn in your palm, wait a few minutes, and then call it a fraud when it doesn’t turn into an oak tree.

Optimal Environment

To bring an observed natural phenomenon into the laboratory for examination, creating an environment as close to the natural one as possible is necessary. When the phenomenon being studied involves people and not just seeds or chemicals, the research design must include the real-world, lived experiences of the people. In order to acquire new knowledge, my practice has always included bringing research participants into the conversation when designing a study. This allows me to collect feedback about what is and is not their lived experience of the phenomenon under investigation. In the observed phenomenon of mediumship readings, mediums report discarnate-associated information to the discarnates’ living loved ones, the sitters. Therefore, the experimental protocol design needed to account for all three people and their relationships to each other—discarnates, sitters, and mediums—and include reasonable reading conditions. 

 

Dr. Julie Beischel is the Director of Research at the Windbridge Research Center. She received her PhD in Pharmacology and Toxicology with a minor in Microbiology and Immunology from the University of Arizona and uses her interdisciplinary training to apply the scientific method to controversial topics. For over 15 years, Dr. Beischel has worked full-time studying mediums: individuals who report experiencing communication with the deceased and who regularly, reliably, and on-demand report the specific resulting messages to the living. References cited in her paper are deleted from these excerpts but a full paper with references is available at the Bigelow website (https://bigelowinstitute.org/contest_winners3.php).