Skip to main content

Chris French - Five Way Interview

As well as being Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Goldsmiths College, University of London, and the head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Chris French regularly appears on TV and radio and is an expert skeptic on the popular BBC show, Uncanny. His new book is The Science of Weird Shit.

Why science?

Science may not be perfect – because scientists are only human and are susceptible to the same foibles as everybody else – but for my money it is by far the best approach we have for trying to figure out the truth about how the universe works and our place in it.

Why this book?

I taught an optional module on anomalistic psychology for over 20 years at Goldsmiths, University of London. The topics covered, including alien abduction claims, ghosts, people claiming psychic abilities, and belief in conspiracies, are topics that most people, whether believers or sceptics, find inherently fascinating. The module allowed me to discuss a wide range of relevant psychological phenomena, such as the unreliability of memory, hallucinatory experiences, and various cognitive biases, but also to emphasise the need for critical thinking. I had wanted to write a popular science book on anomalistic psychology for many years but only found the time to complete that project following my retirement.

There are clearly two very different questions: do paranormal abilities and other weird phenomena exist at all, and why people believe in them. Is the starting assumption in anomalistic psychology that they are all misunderstandings of psychological or biological phenomena, or do you start with an open mind?

The primary focus of anomalistic psychology is to see if we can come up with non-paranormal explanations for ostensibly paranormal phenomena and, wherever possible, to produce evidence in support of those alternative explanations. So, we assume, purely as a working hypothesis, that paranormal phenomena do not exist. But an important part of proper scepticism is to always be open to the possibility that you may be wrong. I am not convinced that paranormal phenomena really do exist on the basis of the current evidence as I see it. However, stronger evidence may be produced in the future that leads me to change my mind. Also, I have put a great deal of time and effort into directly testing paranormal claims. To date, the results have not supported the claims. Being open to changing one’s mind in the light of evidence is, I would argue, true open-mindedness.

What’s next?

For the foreseeable future I will be very busy promoting my new book. I am doing talks all over the UK as well as at conferences in Lyon, Visegrad, and Las Vegas, and lots and lots of podcast interviews. Once things calm down a bit, I’ll give some thought to writing another book. I’ve got some ideas on that front but I’m keeping them under wraps for the time being.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

I’m still excited about finally getting my book over the finish line. I realised the other day that I had written the original proposal back in 2010 but my day job at Goldsmiths was so busy that I just never found time to move the project forward. I’m still ridiculously busy even though I’ve retired but much more of my time is now taken up doing things I actually want to do!

 Photo © Stuart Gennery


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...
Post a Comment
Read more

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...
Post a Comment
Read more

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on...
Post a Comment
Read more