The Cause-and-Effect Relationship of Theory vs Refutation

In the field of psychology, the research process is a cyclic one. Scientific progress is made by testing the validity of scientists’ educated inferences and from the information gathered in the testing process making new inferences that are more educated than before. These new inferences are then tested and the cycle repeats itself. Experimental results are not the only influence on the creation of new hypotheses, however. Input from a scientist’s peers is also crucial when evaluating the results of an experiment, as it helps the scientist obtain a nonbiased view of the facts before him. As long as humans study psychology, refutations, reevaluations and criticisms will necessarily follow the publication of psychological theories.

Rupert Sheldrake is of the opinion that many people have an inexplicable awareness of when they are being stared at. To support this theory, he points to his own experimental research on the subject as well as several surveys that demonstrate that many people believe that they themselves have this ability to sense unseen stares (1). Sheldrake’s work is not without its critics, however. In an article entitled “Research on the Feeling of Being Stared At,” Sheldrake quotes Robert A. Baker:
“SkepticsâÂ?¦believe that [the feeling of being stared at] is nothing more than a superstition and/or a response to subtle signals from the environment” (1). Baker did not stop at his refutation of Sheldrake’s theory; he took it one step further and performed his own research to reevaluate the theory.

In his experiment, Baker selected people who were reading or were otherwise engrossed in an activity in the University of Kentucky library, discreetly sat down behind them, stared at them for a period of time, and then asked the strangers to fill out a response sheet to determine whether they were aware they were being stared at (Sheldrake 1). This experiment was not much different from Sheldrake’s original experiments, except that Baker introduced one additional criterion: he declared that his subjects should be able to say where Baker had been sitting while he was staring at them (Sheldrake 1). When none could do so, he viewed this as a “good reason to believe that they wereâÂ?¦not aware that they were being viewed” (Sheldrake 1).

Baker’s experimental results were not without criticism from Sheldrake, however. Sheldrake listed three possible sources of distraction for Baker’s subjects (including the fact that subjects were allowed to later change their original answers on the response sheet) and said, “If I had been one of Baker’s subjects, I would have been at a loss to understand his instructions” (2). To this Baker replied, “I can unequivocally state that none of the experimental [subjects] had any difficulty understanding what they were supposed to do and acted appropriately” (2).

Without refutations, reevaluations and criticisms from a psychologist’s peers, a psychological theory is useless. Psychological theories must be put under intense scrutiny in order to assess their validity, and collecting input from the psychological community is one of the best ways to put things in perspective for a psychologist. No one psychologist knows all there is to know; it is up to others to fill in the gaps and missing pieces.

Works Cited

Baker, Robert A. “Robert Baker Replies to Sheldrake.” Skeptical Inquirer March 2001:
61. On the Internet at http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/638/175/
48171236w4/purl=rcl_EAIM_0_A71563269&dyn=271!ar_fmt?sw_aep=viva2_
tcc (visited March 10, 2004).

Sheldrake, Rupert. “Research on the Feeling of Being Stared At.” Skeptical Inquirer
March 2001: 58-60. On the Internet at http://web4.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/638/175/48171236w4/purl=rcl_EAIM_0_A71563268?sw_aep=viva2_tcc (visited March 10, 2004).