Something has gone very wrong with the SPR's psi encyclopaedia

Hmm, that probably does set it apart from other pages on the encyclopedia.

I saw you commented on their facebook feed. Any response?

No, nothing other than the public response that my initial objection seemed "hyperbolic".

Just looking back at the blog post by Tom Ruffles about the psi encyclopaedia 18 months ago, I see he said:
"One may not agree with everything in it – psychical research is a lively affair after all – and those who are hostile will naturally moan about a lack of ‘balance’ (as they see it, i.e. not conforming to their particular view); but one can be confident that at least the information has been carefully compiled to be as accurate as possible and is designed to inform rather than mislead."
http://tomruffles.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09...s-new.html

Presumably that was the feeling underlying the response about "hyperbole" on the SPR Facebook page.

But I can't help feeling how completely different this is from the way the Society treated those offering contact with the dead as a commercial service a century ago.

But I can't help feeling how completely different this is from the way the Society treated those offering contact with the dead as a commercial service a century ago.

It is indeed a very different technique. Rather than go through an external medium, this is aiming at a direct personal experience, is it not? Or that's how I understood IADC when I looked into it.

In general I am in favour of direct experience without any intermediaries, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone to go through these things alone. There are times when assistance of one form or another may be the more suitable approach.

It is indeed a very different technique. Rather than go through an external medium, this is aiming at a direct personal experience, is it not? Or that's how I understood IADC when I looked into it.

In general I am in favour of direct experience without any intermediaries, but it is unreasonable to expect everyone to go through these things alone. There are times when assistance of one form or another may be the more suitable approach.

My concern is that - whatever the mechanism - this is a commercial service offering communication with the dead for a fee, and that is something the Society has always looked at in a critical, scientific way rather than swallowing the claims whole and then publishing them as reference material. Remember that the Society has always had a policy of not even holding a corporate view on whether psi exists.

Anyway, I've explained my concerns in detail to the editor of the encyclopaedia, so we'll see what the response is, if any.

My concern is that - whatever the mechanism - this is a commercial service offering communication with the dead for a fee, and that is something the Society has always looked at in a critical, scientific way rather than swallowing the claims whole and then publishing them as reference material. Remember that the Society has always had a policy of not even holding a corporate view on whether psi exists.

Anyway, I've explained my concerns in detail to the editor of the encyclopaedia, so we'll see what the response is, if any.

I had a very prompt response from Robert McLuhan, pointing out that a few case studies in the encyclopaedia are based on a single source, but agreeing that in this case the commercial nature of the enterprise may make some kind of disclaimer appropriate.

The response gives me the impression that balance is still considered important, so I'm somewhat reassured.

I had a very prompt response from Robert McLuhan, pointing out that a few case studies in the encyclopaedia are based on a single source, but agreeing that in this case the commercial nature of the enterprise may make some kind of disclaimer appropriate.

The response gives me the impression that balance is still considered important, so I'm somewhat reassured.

I've conversed with Robert in the past and found him to be a reasonable guy. I get the impression that he would not want the PSI Encyclopedia project to be tainted with commercial endorsements.

I had a very prompt response from Robert McLuhan, pointing out that a few case studies in the encyclopaedia are based on a single source, but agreeing that in this case the commercial nature of the enterprise may make some kind of disclaimer appropriate.

Robert has now added a disclaimer, as follows:
Please note: This article is for information purposes only, and should  not be taken as endorsement or recommendation of IADC as a commercially-available therapy.