Abstract

Notes that scientists interested enough to examine the evidence for ESP tend to find it either convincing or worthless. This polarization of judgment is explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. After a review of 16 arguments used by scientists for rejecting ESP, the mental conflict is modeled as arising from a discrepancy between a subjective antecedent probability (SAP) of ESP, reflecting indirect evidence for the phenomenon, and a subjective counterexplanatory probability (SCEP), derived from the direct evidence. Possible relationships of SCEP and SAP are considered for intellectuals vs nonintellectuals and for laymen vs scientists. A survey of the membership of the Parapsychological Association revealed that even parapsychologists suffer doubt and conflict concerning the reality of ESP. An 88% response rate was elicited from the Association membership (about 230), and of the respondents, only 69% said they were wholly free of doubt.