Post by venom on Sept 18, 2012 6:47:29 GMT -5
I wanted to ask people here what's the difference between parapsychology and anomalistic psychology.
Of course, I know the definitions of those (parapsychology is about trying to prove the existence of psi and/or to work based on the assumption that psi does exist + the same for the survivalist hypothesis) and anomalistic psychology is the the study of anomalous experiences with psychological tools.
But in practice, it seems to be mostly the same. If you take the recent textboox by Holt, Simmonds-Moore, Luke and French about anomalistic psychology, I read it pondering why it wasn't called an introduction to parapsychology.
Of course I get that anomalistic psychology adopts most of the time a reductionist approach. But in that textbook it wasn't the case. Some chapters were clearly written by psi-proponents (like David Luke - of paranthropology fame). So why not call it parapsychology?
The border seems really blurry to me...
Any thought about this?
Of course, I know the definitions of those (parapsychology is about trying to prove the existence of psi and/or to work based on the assumption that psi does exist + the same for the survivalist hypothesis) and anomalistic psychology is the the study of anomalous experiences with psychological tools.
But in practice, it seems to be mostly the same. If you take the recent textboox by Holt, Simmonds-Moore, Luke and French about anomalistic psychology, I read it pondering why it wasn't called an introduction to parapsychology.
Of course I get that anomalistic psychology adopts most of the time a reductionist approach. But in that textbook it wasn't the case. Some chapters were clearly written by psi-proponents (like David Luke - of paranthropology fame). So why not call it parapsychology?
The border seems really blurry to me...
Any thought about this?
