This letter was published in Psychic News, January, 2001

More on the subject of Ron Pearson and the SPR

Professor Carr, in your last issue, considers that I have missed the point of his 'President's Note' in the latest Paranormal Review from the Society for Psychical Research. The point was, he says, '...to draw attention to the wide variety of views encompassed by the SPR'. In fact, I heartily endorse and welcome such a policy, but am concerned when there seems to be a notable failure to observe it. I am also troubled by an uneasy suspicion that the peer-review mechanism employed by periodicals is a double-edged sword and can be an effective instrument of censorship in the wrong hands.

In my view, Ronald Pearson has been the victim of such misuse in a way that has left many of us baffled and dismayed. Especially so because sub-atomic physics now features with growing prominence as a legitimate line of enquiry in the paranormal arena, and Mr. Pearson's approach is simply a further reflection of this. Consequently, the treatment of him by the SPR looks even more bewildering.

If, as Professor Carr writes, the SPR '...has no collective opinion,' I am confident that its wider membership would cordially welcome a shift of emphasis, by the governing body, towards paying more attention to the opinion of those of us who are not part of the inner-circle of decision makers in the Society. At present, the only voices we hear and read in SPR publications belong to the chosen few, rather than from the membership at large, a situation that oily serves to promote disenchantment. I myself, although a member of the SPR for rising ten years' am still treated like a stranger when attending meetings. As many others with whom I have spoken about this share my feelings, the immediate outlook for the Society is far from healthy.

I entirely agree with Professor Carr that 'our religious propensities should be kept separate from how we conduct psychical research'. But so, also, should our scientific propensities. Orthodox science can be as doctrinaire as any mediaeval priesthood, accompanied by similar notions of heresy. As long as the SPR continues to adopt a deferential posture towards the white coats in the laboratory, its preoccupation with gaining academic respectability in the eyes of mainstream science will disable its pursuit of psychical evidence. As the history of all professional disciplines amply demonstrates, the truth had never been allowed to stand in the way of prevailing prejudice.

In closing, I should just like to add that, while Professor Carr was careful not to declare his own personal bias in his article, it seemed from his tone and emphasis that 'survival' research and evidence is something to be tolerated, rather than central and part of the cutting-edge of psychical enquiry.

John Samson, West Sussex

SPR President Responds - Letter from Bernard Carr, written on March 17, 2001, on the subject of censorship and the Society for Psychical Research.

Is The SPR Serious About Being Even Handed? - Letter from Ronald Pearson, written in response to Prof. Carr's letter to Psychic News, March 17, 2001

Religionists Control the SPR - E-mail from Victor Zammit to Michael Roll (September 14, 2002)