Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Examining Facebook's role in public discourse about parapsychology is important when considering how science vs pseudoscience is widely understood. Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement is used to assess an existing Facebook thread led by the question ‘is there any real evidence of psychic powers?’ 250 posted responses are examined for type. Critical Discourse Analysis applying scientific constructivism as a theoretical approach is used to examine most frequent types of commentary. Ad Hominem, Contradiction and Responding to Tone were the 3 most frequently recorded types. Comments evidence perceptions of educational institutions as vanguards of ‘good science’ with less consideration given to scientific rigour. Scepticism is identified as desirable when assessing research but is poorly conceptualised. Further research recommends 1) comparing parapsychology across social media platforms to assess how affordances shape debate; 2) exploring the role of scepticism and 3) examining the public's understanding of parapsychology in the context of science communication.

Keywords

cognitive biases ideology interpersonal communication parapsychology critical discourse analysis scientific constructivism

Introduction

Paranormal beliefs and experiences are prominent within the public imagination. A 2022 survey of 994 people residents in the United Kingdom (UK), for example, revealed that 50% of respondents believed in ghosts (SpiritShack, 2022). Surveys consistently indicate that paranormal beliefs remain prevalent within the UK population (Castro et al., 2014/2014; Dean et al., 2022; Roe, 2023). The UK is no outlier when it comes to paranormal beliefs. A recent paper identified supernatural explanations for natural phenomena (e.g., storms, earthquakes) across 114 geographically and culturally diverse societies (Jackson et al., 2023). The associations between paranormal beliefs and cognitive function have been widely examined. A systematic review conducted by Dean et al. (2022) evidence over 30 years of research and 475 identified studies. Cognitive bias has been specifically reported as a predictor of paranormal belief (e.g., Pennycook et al., 2012; Willard & Norenzayan, 2013), thinking styles (e.g., Aarnio & Lindeman, 2005; Drinkwater et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2022/2021) and personality and individual differences (e.g., Auton et al., 2003; Chauvin & Mullet, 2021; Darolia & Chugh, 2022; Khan et al., 2025).

Less well examined are the roles and presentations of paranormal beliefs in online contexts. This is of critical importance, given how the prevailing interest is reflected on social media, with numerous ghost hunting profiles and pages (Ruickbie, 2019; Vale & Watkins, 2018). This includes the social media platform Facebook which has, in recent years, hosted a proliferation of paranormal-themed pages. Examples of UK-based paranormal pages include Paranormal UK which, as of 2^nd March 2025 has 4.7k members and Paranormal Investigations UK with 11k followers (accessed by [FIRST AUTHOR] on 2^nd March 2025). Current literature has primarily focused on the use of online platforms with paranormal content, including social media, as predictors of paranormal or anomalous beliefs (Brewer, 2013/2012; Stise et al., 2023; Wright et al., 2024).

The continuing interest in paranormal beliefs and experiences poses questions about how lay persons see the role of scientific research in exploring potential explanations for phenomena. There is, however, scant literature on how the public perceive research into paranormal phenomena, how it is debated publicly in the online space, and what the implications are for the ways in which social media users consume, participate, and generate content about paranormal research from an evidence-based perspective. Further research into how the public discuss such research online would potentially provide more in-depth, up-to-date, assessments of how members of the public distinguish science from non-science, how the affordances of specific platforms facilitate further discussion, and the wider implications for science communication. To do this, it is important to first introduce research to do date exploring paranormal phenomena.

Parapsychology: An Overview

Parapsychology, the research field established to take a scientific approach to examining paranormal beliefs and experiences, has been active in the UK since 1882 with the inception of the Society for Psychical Research (https://www.spr.ac.uk) set up in response to contemporary public interest in Spiritualism (i.e., seances and the reported ability in being able to communicate with the deceased). Additional research organisations include the Parapsychological Association (USA), which was formed in 1957. (https://www.parapsych.org/). Both organisations continue to be leading authorities in a field that is dedicated to the study of experiences which are in principle outside the realm of human capabilities or experiences currently understood by conventional science (Irwin & Watt, 2007, p. 1). Phenomena of interest includes psychical (psi) experiences and abilities (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and psychokinesis) and evidence for post-mortem survival (e.g., ghosts, reincarnation). Proponents argue that parapsychology has the potential to broaden our worldview through developing both methodologies and theoretical frameworks for both physical and humanistic sciences, including the potential discoveries of mechanisms for phenomena not yet fully understood (Morris, 2000; Rhine & Pratt, 2010; Rock et al., 2013), while also understanding the validity of reported phenomena in the light of widespread belief (Groome & Roberts, 2024: Irwin, 1993; Lawrence, 1995).

However, parapsychology remains a controversial field due to, principally, there still being no known, or widely understood, mechanisms for phenomena explored (Ackers, 1987; Watt, 2005). Research has often relied on subjective self-reports of experiences, mostly without external validation (Kurtz, 2023). There are also accusations that parapsychology suffers from poor methodological practices (Alcock, 1981; 2023; Kennedy, 2013). In a paper outlining a meta-analysis of psi studies Cardeña (2018) argues for evidence of significant psi effects. However, Reber and Alcock (2020) issue a rebuttal, claiming that evidence of psi effects has previously been announced, then disregarded, demonstrating, they argue, no progress in the parapsychology field since its inception in the 1880s. However, theories for psi are beginning to emerge (e.g., Carr, 2015; Millar, 2015; Thompson, 2022). Yet the application of such theories is currently limited within the literature. Cardeña (2018) concedes that, despite arguing for potential statistical evidence for psi, there is currently no shared understanding for such effects. Limited theories regarding the mechanisms for phenomena present fundamental challenges for parapsychology in considering falsifiability as one of the ways of demarcating much of its work as science from non-science: if a theory is not posited, how can it be falsified or tested? (Mitra, 2020; Popper, 1963). Bunge (1984) goes further in arguing for a demarcating of science from ‘pseudoscience’ as science being, by definition, based on testability, predictive power, and compatibility with existing literature (of which, Bunge argues, parapsychology is not compatible).

Scientific Constructivism: Parapsychology in Context

Scientific constructivism presents a theoretical framework for understanding how scientific knowledge is humanly constructed rather than determined by the world (Downes, 1998). Scientific conclusions are not made in a vacuum but are arrived at by negotiating meaning through discourse and debate within communities of practice (Fosnot, 2013; Lau et al., 2003). Scientific discourse is constructed by scientists in a particular field to establish themselves in relation to other scientists, and language plays a crucial role in forming this societal reality and identity (Gunnarsson, 2014).

The demarcation argument for what distinguishes science from non-science, is complex. Merton (1973) argues that science was essentially formed by the principles of universalism, communism (as in common ownership), disinterestedness and scepticism. In the process of developing the concept of boundary work to define what constitutes science, Gieryn (1983) argues that science is not a singularity, its boundaries remain flexible, and it can change within historical and political contexts. The sets of characteristics of pseudoscience continue to be contested, with on one hand propositions that pseudoscience is something that is indicative by the degree to which unscientific practices may be taking place such as, as examples, emphasis on confirmation rather than refutation or evasion of scrutiny via peer review (French, 2021; Lilienfeld, 2005) This differs to alternative categorisations of pseudoscience, such as, for example, work based on subjectivistic knowledge or based on untestable hypotheses from the outset (Alcock, 1981). French (2021) argues that science should not be defined by a set of facts that can never be questioned, but rather by a set of processes to attempt to build on existing knowledge.

From this perspective, it could be argued that the prevailing scientific discourse has its own orthodoxies, or accepted, scientific knowledge, that demarcates areas of enquiry that exist with and within currently accepted scientific boundaries (Atmanspacher & Freiburg, 2009; Martin, 2021). Therefore, it could be argued that parapsychology is at the forefront of challenging existing demarcations (Zingrone, 2002). Several parapsychologists argue that much of the criticism of their field is based on ideological positioning rather than assessing research findings (Roe, 2017; Weiler, 2020). Furthermore, a content analysis of mainstream and non-mainstream research could not find justification for parapsychology as a pseudoscience compared to the research practices of its more mainstream counterparts (Mousseau, 2003). Nonetheless, Irwin (2007) argues that parapsychology is subject to the ‘socio-political strategies’ aimed to maintain the cultural image of science as the ‘ultimate arbiter of knowledge’ and parapsychology, with its ‘superstitious and ‘occultist’ associations for the public, is seen as an ‘affront to science’ irrespective of the research findings themselves. It is against this backdrop that parapsychology continues to struggle to be integrated into the scientific establishment.

The controversy continues online. Parapsychology is ‘criticised as a pseudoscience’ on its Wikipedia page (on 24^th July 2024, sourced by [First Author]), Anonymous editors gatekeep pages, which arguably makes it almost impossible for content to be challenged by individuals working in related fields (Martin, 2018; Martin, 2021; Murphy-Morgan et al., 2021; Weiler, 2020). Much of the gatekeeping regarding paranormal phenomena on Wikipedia has been led by Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (GsOW). This group of largely anonymised editors see their mission as improving the sceptical content of Wikipedia, by providing as what they argue as ‘…providing noteworthy citations and removing the unsourced claims from paranormal and pseudoscientific pages. ’ (https://www.abouttimeproject.org/gsow). It is not just Wikipedia. A 2013 TEDx talk by leading parapsychology figure Rupert Sheldrake advocating a challenge to ‘current scientific dogmas’ was removed from the TED Talks platform after sparking a fierce debate. Debunkers of Sheldrake's position argued that Sheldrake was in fact promoting pseudoscience (as described by Weiler, 2020). The debate included accusations of censorship by TED, given that TED is arguably a platform for intellectual opinion rather than scientific presentation. An assessment of public commentaries left on YouTube comment threads of two posted videos focusing on two scientists with opposing views of parapsychology revealed a high level of intolerance of differing viewpoints, reinforcing confirmation bias and polarisation and, in the continued perception held by many commenters, the view that parapsychology continues to sit outside of mainstream science (Murphy-Morgan et al., 2022).

The Role of Facebook and How to Argue

Social media has an important role to play in the continuing debate. Evidence suggests associations between the use of social media platforms as predictors of paranormal and cultivators of belief (Stise et al., 2023; Wright et al., 2024). Yet how individuals construct their arguments when discussing research into paranormal phenomena is less explored. In terms of online discourse, Boyd (2010) investigated the role of ‘networked publics’ as communities that are shaped or reconfigured by technologies who themselves reconfigure the information available. This includes the means to consume, participate in, and generate information (Taddicken & Krämer, 2021). Social media encompasses a diverse and rapidly evolving array of platforms, comprising varying functionalities including blogs, sharing of photos, commentary, and direct messaging where audiences are no longer passive recipients but are themselves the active generators of content (Hanna et al., 2011; Taddicken & Krämer, 2021). Identity on Facebook is also constructed through and by interaction, maintained by exchanging comments – a visual environment with interaction and conversation that is often fragmented. But it also allows users to utilise a range of other tools intrinsic and unique to social media platform such as emojis, likes, dislikes, sharing of links and visual material to engage in conversation or underpin or add nuance to an argument (Polletta et al., 2008; Subramanian et al., 2019). Facebook discourse, like any other discourse, is inherently constitutive of identity – how do users wish to represent themselves – people think carefully about how their profile best reflects them, and which aspects of themselves they wish to publicly represent (e.g., Boyd, 2010; Georgalou, 2017). For example, Paranormal Investigations UK describe themselves as a ‘professional paranormal investigation team’ on their Facebook page, with their own postings describing several potentially haunted locations in the UK, and types of experiences reported. They are cautious not to provide specific opinions as an administration team but still allow space for followers to comment. Paranormal investigators place a great deal of emphasis on proof of their what they argue as their own level professionalism and credibility on Facebook, which is consistent with how investigators present themselves on other media and social media platforms (e.g., Brewer, 2013/2012; Hill, 2012). This arguably is due to the dichotomy of how research into paranormal phenomena on presented and understood: on one hand as entertainment (Hill et al., 2018; Winsper et al., 2008) and on the other accusations that the field of investigation is merely pseudoscience.

Polarization on Facebook is widely examined (Bessi, et al., 2016; Del Vicario, 2016). Studies have also focused specifically on what conversational or debate tactics responders on Facebook use to challenge their opponents, including ad hominem attacks to undermine the original posters authority on a given subject (Demir, 2020; Habernal et al., 2018; Lillo-Unglaube et al., 2014; Martini, 2018) and how posters on Facebook respond to tone (Kim & Masullo Chen, 2021; West & Trester, 2013). Conversely, evidence suggests that Facebook has a way of cultivating a sense of solidarity and belonging around shared interests (Burke & Develin, 2016; Georgakopoulou, 2016). Previous literature exploring the quality of discourse on Facebook present mixed findings, from generally, poor with little evidence of deliberation (Welch, 2018) and unresolved (Cionea et al., 2017) to Facebook presenting a more egalitarian and polite level of discourse compared from other, more anonymised social media platforms including, for example, YouTube (Halpern & Gibbs, 2013). Polarised discussion about paranormal phenomena is explored (Fasce, 2022; Northcote, 2013; Weiler, 2020), yet how polarisation on research into paranormal phenomena on Facebook is less examined. YouTube discussions about parapsychology specifically suggests a polarised discussion (Murphy-Morgan et al., 2022), and further research across several social media platforms would assist with a greater understanding of how the affordances of varying platforms either facilitate or attenuate polarised discussion specifically about parapsychology and paranormal beliefs and experiences (Murphy-Morgan & Cooper, 2024).

In a 2008 essay How to Disagree, Paul Graham (https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html) responded to the natures of evolving discourses online, observing that if we are going to argue online more, rather than face-to-face, it is important to do it well, and to be able to able to be equipped to critically assess what we read and respond to. Graham (2008) also argued that being able to label and categorise types of argument (e.g., from name calling to refuting the central point etc) can also guard against ‘intellectual dishonesty’ and encourage individuals to also consider their own discourse methods to present better constructed arguments and for improved public debate (Graham, 2008). It is essentially a tool to support individuals to construct their arguments in more accomplished ways. Graham's approach has begun to be explored in the context of interactions and commentary on social media (Pascoal, 2015).

Critical Discourse Analysis: Parapsychology in the Context of Language and Power

Critical Discourse Analysis has much to offer cognitive literature in understanding the relationship between language and power. It explores the construction of conversations and the language used, in historical, cultural, social and political contexts, not looking at discourse alone as language used to create certain subject positions. It encompasses several approaches in explaining the interaction in terms of social interaction and social structures, exploring how conversation may reaffirm power imbalances in society (Fairclough, 2013; Statham, 2022; Van Dijk, 2015). It also considers prominent ideologies (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Wodak, 2002), in this instance what does and does not sit within scientific orthodoxy. From a social cognition perspective, Critical Discourse Analysis's focus on ideology and how it underpins discourse can be useful in examining how individuals understand the world (Koller, 2005/2005) and the use of language in reproducing and translating this information (Hjelm, 2021; Statham, 2022). Critical Discourse Analysis has recently been employed as a methodology to examine social media discourse in specific contexts, for example to examine how language is used online in relation to e.g., ‘fake news’ (e.g., Igwebuike & Chimuanya, 2021) and in the context of protest (Ahaotu & Oshamo, 2023). This approach has allowed for an examination of hidden power structures, ideologies or inequalities in language and communication, allowing for a constructivist approach in examining how meaning is made from the interactions.

Study Rationale

This Critical Discourse Analysis seeks to begin to address the current gap in the literature for how individuals argue for or against parapsychology, and how scientific orthodoxy is debated, via social media. To do this, this study utilises a specific social media platform (Facebook) as a way of examining how the specific affordance of this platform facilitates the conversation. The study seeks to explore how language used shapes the social power dynamics of the online discourse, particularly in the respect of what individuals understand as the difference between science and non-science. Ideologies that may underpin the discourse, and how individuals use language and strategies to support their arguments, are explored. Scientific constructivism is used as a theoretical framework to interpret how posters construct their arguments both in support of, or disagreement to, the existence of paranormal phenomena and their perspectives of parapsychology as a science.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement is used as a tool to assess the frequency of types of responses to argument within this model, and how they organise their discourse online. This is a preliminary assessment to explore how Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement could work as a tool to tease out the ways the language is ‘functioning’ to create subject positions within online social hierarchal systems encompassing discourses of ‘expertise’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘scientific/academic credibility’ (e.g., Parker, 1994). In this way, this study aims to highlight how Critical Discourse Analysis can add a level of critical enquiry in terms of analysing data qualitatively with a primary focus on how parapsychology, or research into paranormal phenomena, are contentiously discussed and subsequently polarised in public online domains.

Materials and Methods

This study was granted ethical approval by Northumbria University ethics online system [reference no: 2644]. This qualitative study took a deductive approach to analysing an existing social media data set. It involved existing Facebook data accessed on 30^th July 2021. No real time participation was involved in this study. The first 250 comments posted in response to a Facebook posting on an anonymised single users’ timeline in response to the question: “I know this is a strange question, but I will go ahead and ask it: is there any evidence of psychic powers? Has any research come close to suggesting that it is humanly possible?” Data were anonymised and logged using the recommended guidance for internet-mediated research (British Psychological Society, 2021) to ensure the confidentiality of individuals.

Developed by Graham in his essay How to disagree (2008), Grahams Hierarchy of Disagreement is a model based on observations of how individuals debate and construct their arguments in the online space. It is constructed of 7 points, each of which refers to a hierarchical stage at which an argument is at its construction. This is a 7-stage disagreement hierarchy as follows: DH0: Name calling; DH1: Ad Hominem (e.g., attempts to discredit the authority of the author on a given subject); DH2: Responding to tone (i.e., responding to how something was said rather than what was said); DH3: Contradiction (e.g., simply arguing that something posited is a falsehood without evidence to underpin why this may be the case); DH4: Counterargument (e.g., contradiction with at least some reasoning); DH5: Refutation (counterargument with reasoning and evidence) and DH6: Refuting the Central Point (focusing clearly on the main point that the author is attempting to make, and counterarguing with reasoning and evidence). The Hierarchy is presented as a pyramid in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

Procedure

Step 1: As a method for systematising coding of the data for this qualitative study, a frequency assessment of the types of comments identified all 250 comments were coded using Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and were categorised into which hierarchy point best reflected the point made. Some comments were categorised across more than one hierarchy. Both authors coded the data independently for consistency across the data set. Frequencies were recorded for all the hierarchies, and comments that were not applicable were removed. Applying social constructivism as a theoretical framework, the types of commentaries were used to explore how commenters used language to construct their arguments in their posts, and to what extent the notion of scientific authority was presented as an ideological position, and how language was used to demonstrate what posters viewed to be science from ‘non-science. Once each coded, authors met again to discuss their findings and to come to negotiated agreement and to discuss any remaining discrepancies in data interpretation. To aid further objectivity, a third independent researcher University of Northampton, independently checked and verified both authors coded excel data sheets, and conducted a Cohens Kappa analysis for inter-rater reliability between both raters for each of the 7 hierarchies. The rater agreements between authors demonstrated substantial to perfect levels of agreement respectively: DH0 = Name Calling (k = 1., p < .005); DH1 = Ad Hominem (k = .963., p < .001); DH2 = Responding to Tone (k = 1., p < .001); DH3 = Contradiction (k = 815., p < .001); DH4 = Counterargument (k = .954., p < .001); DH5 = Refutation (k = 929., p < .001); DH6 = Refuting the Central Point (k = 1., p < .001).

Step 2: Authors agreed pre-data collection and analysis that applied Critical Discourse Analysis would be applied to analyse all comments categorised under the 3 most frequently reported types of comments reported. All quotes from the data set are paraphrased in line with BPS Psychological Society 2021 guidelines for internet-mediated research to protect the identity and therefore anonymity of all individuals included in the online discussion.

Results

Phase 1: Frequency Analysis

The frequency analysis scores for the most recorded types of comments within Graham's Hierarchy categorisation were DH1: Ad Hominem (e.g., attempts to discredit the authority of the author on a given subject) n = 87, 29%; DH2: Responding to Tone (i.e., responding to how something was said rather than what was said) n = 66, 22% and DH3: Contradiction (e.g., simply arguing that something posited is a falsehood without evidence to underpin why this may be the case); n = 53, 18%. For the purposes of debate analysis, commenters sympathetic to parapsychology were identified as proponents, and those who did not appear to accept parapsychology as a legitimate science were categorised as debunkers.

The resulting frequency scores for all post categorisations are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Frequency Scores = Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

Disagreement Hierarchy (DH)	Frequency Scores for number of postings (n = 250)*
DH6 = Refuting the Central Point	9
DH5 = Refutation	17
DH4 = Counterargument	41
DH3 = Contradiction	53
DH2 = Responding to Tone	66
DH1 = Ad Hominem	86
DH0 = Name Calling	26

Of 3 Disagreement Hierarchies (DH) most frequently observed:
DH	n = Proponent Postings	n = Debunking postings	** n = mixed postings / other	M(SD) = word count per posting	n = postings with + features
DH3 = Contradiction (n = 53)	11	34	8	34.64 (36.35)	Emojis = 2 YouTube links = 8 Publication Links = 2
DH2 = Responding to Tone (n = 66)	31	26	9	34.62 (38.89)	YouTube links = 1 Emojis = 12 (laughter / smile/ winking to denote sarcasm) Publication Links = 4
DH1 = Ad Hominem (n = 87)	22	62	3	31.51 (29.79)	Emojis = 6 (laughter to denote sarcasm) YouTube links = 1 Publication Links = 1

*NB = some comments covered more than one DH category.

**NB = Comments that refer to points in category but deemed neither fully proponent nor sceptical comment.

Phase 2: Critical Discourse Analysis DH 1, 2 & 3

A Critical Discourse Analysis of the 3 most frequently reported hierarchies for comments was carried out. Scientific constructivism frames this analysis, with evidence across the dataset that commenters assume an ideologically entrenched position as either proponents or debunkers of parapsychology. Most commenters assumed positions of either fighting to be ‘within the tent of accepted science’ (proponents) or trying to keep the ‘pseudoscientists out.’ (debunkers). For proponents of parapsychology, there are attempts to verify parapsychology as an accepted science by emphasising that parapsychological research use approaches that are widely accepted (e.g., methodology, protocols, data analysis etc), assuming the hallmarks of any other scientific field (e.g., psychology, neuroscience). Conversely, there appears to be assumptions made by debunkers that the ‘science community’ has an agreed consensus on what constitutes pseudoscience, that parapsychology has been categorised under the label of pseudoscience, with little understanding of how perceptions of science are constructed within historical, cultural, and political contexts. Phrases and language relate to broad themes under each of the key 3 hierarchical categories will now be explored in turn.

Role of Ad Hominem: The Pseudoscience Debate Goes on

For Ad Hominem comments, the academic rigour of parapsychology was called into question. In responses to proponents posting about parapsychology, there were specific attempts from debunking commentors to undermine the proponent's academic knowledge by attempting to discredit the calibre of their higher education, where or what they studied and debates about what constitutes ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ universities:

“REAL degrees, NOT the one YOU have studied, don’t teach such supernatural nonsense.”

This argument is also carried forward in a discussion about ‘strong’ vs ‘poor’ academic journals as this debunker states:

“Some [academic] journals will publish any old crap.”

Debunking comments suggest a perceived hierarchy of prestigious universities or educational institutions as the vanguards of ‘good science’ with less consideration given by debunkers to assessing the efficacy of the processes by which research demonstrates scientific rigour (e.g., observability, replication, falsifiability). Despite one proponent's response stating that they have 2 degrees including a PhD from a UK university, the debunking responder simply states that this doesn’t count because ‘you can just fake PhDs’ if the university that you go to is ‘dubious’ and of ‘poor quality.’ From the perspective of scientific constructivism, there appears to be a sense that the perceived trappings of universities and ‘real degrees’ are a key part of the way in which science vs pseudoscience demarcation is reinforced. Proponents also appear to reinforce this demarcation, by citing how many degrees they have or how reputable journals have included some parapsychology-focused papers within their volumes (e.g., Nature, Psychology Today).

Words such as ‘woo’, and ‘bullshit’ were used by debunkers to discredit parapsychology and directed towards proponents by debunkers to try to prevent them from arguing the validity of their knowledge. This would appear to suggest that debunking commenters believe that there is an unchallenged consensus about what is considered legitimate science and what is not. From a constructivist perspective, the language used assumes that the barriers are clearly defined, and parapsychology universally discredited. Commenters continue to apply the pseudoscience argument to discredit parapsychology's scientific legitimacy, as one debunking commenter states:

“[Parapsychology] is superstition, pseudoscience and medieval fantasy.”

Additionally, comments from debunkers go on to discredit, not only parapsychology per se, but also the authority and credentials of parapsychologists themselves:

“Psi researchers just cite themselves and other pseudoscientists”

“Somehow parapsychologists seem to want ‘special treatment’ compared to the real sciences. Anecdote is gospel!”

From a constructivist point of view, these comments appear to suggest that there is no room for parapsychology within the scientific establishment, chiefly due to its own flaws. Neither of the above commenters offer any evidence to support their arguments, there is simply an apparent ‘general’ assumption given that parapsychology, as a whole field, is somewhat bogus with the researchers within the field lacking rigour or dispassionate objectivity. Several proponents appear to answer debunkers (often rhetorical) questions with another question as in this instance:

Debunker: “Don’t you know the difference between real science and parapsychology, or should I say, pseudoscience?”

Proponent response: “Why are you saying that parapsychology is a pseudoscience? Is it simply the phenomena that it studies?’

A debunking commentator responds:

“Well, you don’t learn supernatural crap when you go get a real degree, that is certain.”

There is evidence that proponents confront debunkers attempts to discredit any researchers in the field that by highlighting by attacking people personally is not the same as challenging their work or research findings:

“…., don't speak on behalf of other people, and if you have issue with a researcher's work, then attack his work and not him!”

Ad Hominem approaches are used chiefly by debunkers throughout the thread to derail and deflect from the main question focusing on research and constructive consideration for evidence of the existence of psychic powers. That is not to say that all Ad Hominem arguments are fallacious in this thread. For example, in one part of the thread discussing the workings of the brain, one debunker states that ‘…you are much more likely to get answers from neuroscience than from palm-readers.’ There is however evidence that debunkers across this data set rely heavily on personal attack, ridicule and discrediting of proponents’ levels of education as opposed to addressing the question specifically.

Responding to Tone – “You’re Just not Listening!”

Responses to how someone responds to a previous comment rather than what was said in the response was influential in shaping the tone of the conversation. As a social media platform, interactions on Facebook do not benefit from the non-verbal communication afforded to in-person interaction, consequently the tone of a written post can be interpreted in several ways. In response to being asked why they held existing beliefs about parapsychology this debunking commenter had this to say with the following response:

Debunker: “I don’t see why I should have to justify myself and my position to you or anyone else!”

Proponent: “I am NOT having a go. [to previous respondent]. I am giving you the chance to change my mind. I’m not interested in your background; I am interested in what arguments you have [to support respondents’ position]. But anyway, never mind.”

The final ‘never mind’ from the proponent appears to suggest they feel that there is a futility to the online discussion, or a sense of resignation that, no matter what evidence or argument is presented, minds cannot be changed. This would appear to suggest that the tone provides evidence of commenters already entrenched position, and an exacerbation rather than amelioration of the polarisation of the debate.

As an affordance on Facebook, as well as other social media platforms, emojis can serve as ways to insert a level of nuance into discussions that would be reliant wholly on text. Smile and wink emojis are used in the dataset to provide a tone of sarcasm in discrediting proponent positions as in this example:

“When parapsychology actually finds anything real just let us know ”

Responses from proponents call attention to the use of emojis in this way with responses such as:

“Is that [laughter emoji] an attempt to put humour before debate?”

This would appear to demonstrate confirmation bias in terms of how both debunkers and proponents respond to emoji use. Commenters communicate to other commenters with similar viewpoints their intention to ignore opponents’ tactics as in this proponent's example:

“I am going to ignore the guy who keeps using the laughter emoji.”

The responding tone frames the conversation from the point of posters only listening to their own or similar points of view, with ‘not listening’ presenting evidence of confirmation bias, exacerbated by the limits of internet-mediated communication previously mentioned. This is illustrated by a much-repeated phrase and from both proponents and debunkers:

“You just hear what you want to. You’re just not listening!”

From a constructivist perspective, the responding to tone can also indicate pre-empted or imagined attack to one's own ideological position. In this instance, this may indicate an attempt at deflection from the central point of argument to protect the perceived scientific status quo. There are also several accusations of rudeness being used as a means of attempting to silence any challenges to the science demarcation debate as this proponent complains:

“Being rude is NOT being scientific – you have got to be rather close-minded to reject everything out of hand with an insult!”

One proponent goes further:

“I just see rudeness, personal attack, sarcasm, ridicule, deliberate attempts to divert the conversation, exaggerating, and straw man arguments as ways just to bring people down… It's the old guard against anything that might challenge the main point of view!”

It could be argued that proponents also use responding to tone as a way of accusing the ‘old guard’ of defending their existing positions, and of not being open to challenging or alternative points of view. Proponents arguably present parapsychology as a scientific ‘underdog’ that remains marginalised. This suggests proponents believe that there is a power imbalance when it comes to the wider conversation, with many proponents taking on the reluctant mantel of being agents for challenge to what they see as the prevailing scientific hierarchy.

Contradiction: Entrenchment, and What Makes a Sceptic?

For Contradiction, comments included several accusations of ‘money making’ as the focus of those who claim to have psychic abilities. There were also outright statements given with no invitation to respond as in this case:

“There is NO evidence to support it [psychic ability]. People who claim to have these ‘powers’ are only in it for the money.”

There were several accusations of psychics’ monetizing individual's beliefs in the paranormal:

“Psychic powers are not real. They don’t exist. Magic people don’t exist. I can’t believe that grown-ups believe this stuff. Anybody claiming psychic powers is just fooling people who didn’t get a good enough education.”

Narratives presented by debunkers about parapsychology reinforce its perceived position as a pseudoscience, with researchers in the field attempting to deceive and obfuscate via poor research practices. From a constructivist perspective, the positioning of parapsychology as a pseudoscience is reinforced:

“The research is poor. REAL scientists know that they [parapsychologists] never found anything. REAL scientists do better things with their time.”

“Real scientists don’t just produce results by shouting about what they see as proof, they let the actual results do the talking!”

In the context of social media affordances, video links were widely used as a way of directly contradicting a previous comment by both proponents and debunkers. YouTube links were the most used, with magician, author and outspoken opponent of parapsychology James Randi and his debunking of parapsychology being the most widely shared set of films by debunkers. Variations on the TEDx talk by Rupert Sheldrake and links to the work of parapsychologist Dean Radin as being the most widely set of YouTube clips shared by proponents. Most link postings were shared as part of a contradictory statement, or simply on their own in response. Links were largely ignored or met by dismissal by recipients as in this response from a debunker in response to a Radin link added to the thread:

“Thanks, but I have researched this area [parapsychology] and have a lot more experience than YOU. Totally unconvinced, as is the REAL scientific community. Radin does a lot of woo-woo, going around promoting the paranormal while ignoring the real flaws that the REAL scientific community can see a mile off!”

This position once again employs language such as ‘woo’ to place parapsychology in the ‘bullshit’ camp and therefore outside of the field of legitimate science. This quote also refers to how the commenter imagines the scientific boundaries are defined and protected, and how language can be used to separate out scientists from ‘non-scientists.’ Again, the commenter does not provide evidence to support their claim regarding how scientists in other fields perceive parapsychologists.

However, one position that both debunkers and proponents largely agreed upon was the concept that scepticism was a healthy and important approach to take in the debate, as this commenter enthuses:

“We should all be sceptics….healthy scepticism all the way!”

However, there was some considerable disagreement of what scepticism involves, let alone ‘healthy scepticism,’ with little agreement on what it means to take a sceptical approach to examining parapsychological research. There was some discussion that appeared to evidence that some commenters believe that scepticism in fact requires the enforcement of prior disbelief as this commenter suggests:

‘You are going to have to show that you understand what critical thinking and skepticism is if you are going to big up a book that takes seances and EVP [Electronic Voice Phenomena] seriously!”

However, several proponents countered this argument by referring to ‘dogmatic’ scepticism, as in the refusal of an individual to examine any data that might challenge their deeply held existing beliefs:

“Dogmatic scepticism and letting personal beliefs cloud their judgement – that is what's ruining things online. But then these people try to say they are using scepticism. It's demeaning.”

Some proponents take this a step further, countering the pseudoscience argument with the argument of pseudoscepticism in response. This proponent counters the reinforcement of disbelief as scepticism:

“Belief in disbelief is not scepticism. It's pseudo-skepticism.”

There is, however, little discussion about what constitutes scepticism beyond the realms of reinforcement of currently held disbelief of accusations from proponents that debunkers are conflating disbelief with ‘real’ scepticism. This appears to suggest that this, whilst there is broad agreement that scepticism is a key component of critical thinking, there is little consensus between proponents and debunkers as to what constitutes a sceptical approach.

Discussion

The study set out to consider the implications for how the public understand and discuss information about parapsychology, classification of disagreement, and implications for public discourse about scientific information. To do this we explored public perspectives of parapsychology on Facebook, utilising Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement as a tool for assessing the types of discourse commentary most frequently used. Taking a scientific constructivist perspective, a Critical Discourse Analysis approach was utilised to examine how the conversation reflected prevailing perceptions of parapsychology, how the affordances of Facebook helped or hindered the conversation, and what the discourse revealed about how the public viewed concepts or science vs pseudoscience more broadly.

The original question: “I know this is a strange question, but I will go ahead and ask it: is there any evidence of psychic powers? Has any research come close to suggesting that it is humanly possible?” arguably assumes that to ask questions about scientifically unorthodox subjects is outside of societal norms. Through the lens of scientific constructivism, it could be argued that this question set the tone of conversation from the outset; that being that the owner of the profile on who this conversational thread unfolded already presents the question by positioning parapsychological research (i.e., psi) as unusual and outside the scientific mainstream.

Frequency scores using Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement revealed ‘ad hominem’ was the most frequently used argument approach when it came to challenging an opposing view. This corroborates previous literature regarding how ad hominem attacks have been used to undermine an online opponent on a given subject (Demir, 2020; Habernal et al., 2018; Lillo-Unglaube et al., 2014; Martini, 2018). Less well understood are how such comments are used to suggest a perceived hierarchy of prestige, including prestigious universities or educational institutions as the vanguards of ‘good science’ at the expense of assessing the efficacy of the processes by which research demonstrates scientific rigour (e.g., observability, replication, falsifiability). ‘Responding to tone’ was also frequently reported as a debate tactic, and this supported previous research findings (Kim & Masullo Chen, 2020; West & Trester, 2013). Additionally, emojis were used to provide nuance to postings, most notably when it came to sarcasm, which also agrees with previous social media studies (Subramanian et al., 2019). The frequent accusations that fellow commenters with opposing views were ‘just not listening’ is consistent with previous literature evidencing polarisation on Facebook (Bessi, et al., 2016; Del Vicario, 2016). Colloquial and expletive language was used to disregard parapsychology as pseudoscience, with considerable evidence of confirmation bias and polarising positions in terms of reaffirming existing ideological positions for both debunkers and proponents. This is consistent with previous literature dealing with perceptions of parapsychology on social media (Calderbank, 2023; Murphy-Morgan & Cooper, 2024; Murphy-Morgan et al., 2022).

‘Contradiction’ was the third most frequently reported approach, with commenters making a statement without providing evidence to support their claims. This would appear to corroborate previous studies that suggest a poor quality of discourse on Facebook (e.g., Welch, 2018). Links were used widely to contradict a previous commenter's position, and currently the use of links as counterargument on social media appears to be sparsely examined. The use of links to YouTube videos and publications to counter a previous comment could shed further light on how the affordances of Facebook as a platform help or hinder a conversation: to what extent is the sharing of a link either providing information or simply shutting the conversation down? (e.g., Polletta et al., 2008). Previous literature exploring the quality of discourse on Facebook present mixed findings, from generally, poor with little evidence of deliberation to Facebook presenting a more egalitarian and polite level of discourse compared from other, more anonymised social media platforms such at YouTube (Halpern & Gibbs, 2013). We did not find a great deal of civility on this Facebook thread, contrary to much of the literature (e.g., Burke & Develin, 2016). Whilst there was a consensus between debunkers and proponents that scepticism was a healthy approach to scientific debate, there was little agreement on whether a sceptical position either meant reaffirming ones existing disbeliefs or taking an objective, dispassionate approach to assessing information at hand before arriving at a considered position. People were misrepresenting their own beliefs as facts rather than considering them as opinions which needed substantiating with evidence. To counter what some proponents argued was an ideological positioning of parapsychology as pseudoscience, they mobilised behind accusations of ‘pseudo-skepticism’ when it came to challenging those with opposing views. Pseudoscepticism uses the tactics of discussing someone's work in an unscientific way including, as examples, both ad hominem attacks and vitriolic tone (Cabbolet, 2025). Proponents’ references to pseudoscepticism, and how it differs from scepticism remains unexplored in the current data set. Greater knowledge of the etymology of scepticism, and what taking a sceptical approach involves, or does not involve, may help to provide a more informed consensus on what constitutes scientific debate.

Regarding study limitations, in terms of the use of Graham's Hierarchy as a tool for assessing disagreement, and as the data were extracted from an existing Facebook thread, the authors have no knowledge of how the hierarchical points on the tool would have been conceptualised by the commenters themselves. The data analysis was also challenging in that many of the comments encompassed more than one of the hierarchical categories (e.g., a comment illustrating both ‘responding to tone’ and ‘contradiction’). Both authors also recognise their own subjective values in terms of the data analysis, and the epistemological limitations of their own socio-political contexts, and how this may inform how they have shaped their interpretation of the discourse.

Authors acknowledge that this is one data set from one social media platform. Use of a single data set as the focus for deeper investigation is consistent with the critical discourse methodology, which allows for a deeper investigation into the language used and its relationship with, in this instance, how science vs pseudoscience is demarcated. This paper is intended to be first stage exploratory study to examine how dominant narratives about parapsychology and scientific orthodoxy might be further examined or challenged. The decision was made from the outset to focus on a contextualised understanding of language used, and a deep vs broad application. Further research is recommended to build on the findings to examine if ‘ad hominem,’ ‘responding to tone’ and ‘contradiction’ can be applied as a focus to further investigate the discourse across online discourse more widely. The authors also acknowledge that the data was collected from a personal Facebook thread begun by a researcher working in a similar field. Therefore, it could be suggested that, whilst there were a wide variety of views, it is difficult to know to what extent the results and shape of the discourse could be replicated across other Facebook personal profiles (e.g., someone not working in academic research). It could be suggested that most commenters, given the profession of the original posters, may well be individuals with an interest in science and science communication, and how representative these comments are within the wider public realm may be up for debate. It is also important to acknowledge the limitations of Facebook as a platform in terms of demographic reach. For example, a decline in Facebook use in 18–34-year-olds (Hong & Oh, 2020). This also has implications for the generalisability of findings of this study, and to what extent attitudes may differ on an alternative social media platform.

This paper focuses on existing Facebook commentaries bringing ecological validity to the study, in that the posting was from a real-world context. However, demographic information about commenters was unavailable. Further research is recommended to involve participants recruited to a study utilising Graham's Hierarchy to assess for potential associations with demographic variables such age, gender, ethnicity, and highest level of education as examples. Further research with study participants recruited to the study from the outset could further contribute to the understanding power dynamics within language used and socio-cultural influences. This study arguably contributes to the current cognitive and individual differences literature focused on paranormal beliefs and experiences, in that it offers an initial exploration of the types of language used, and the debating strategies employed, in online discourse about attitudes towards research into paranormal phenomena. Further research to examine, for example, the association between either thinking style or personality traits, and types of debating strategy used, could also provide further insight into the how individuals construct their arguments specifically in online contexts.

The debate appears to provide further evidence of the pseudoscience demarcation boundary. The fierce and polarised debate in evidence across this data set suggests that parapsychology continues to be at the forefront of challenging existing demarcations (Zingrone, 2002). This is further complicated by the ever-evolving networked publics on social media (Boyd, 2010), and how communities organise to communicate their views online. From a science communication point of view, the public are no longer passive consumers of information, but also the curators of it (Taddicken & Krämer, 2021). This makes providing tools which will support greater efficacy of informed and constructive debated increasingly challenging. Further research is recommended to compare how the debate regarding parapsychology is formulated across several social media platforms to assess how differing platform affordances allow or hinder constructive debate. Assessing this in the context of demographics, personality and individual differences would also allow for a deeper understanding of the impact of additional influences that might be brought to bear on how individuals formulate their attitudes toward research into paranormal phenomena and how their views are communicated. Further exploration of the role of scepticism, and how it is conceptualised, is recommended as a way of exploring how Facebook and social media users examine the information they receive or share about parapsychology. Further research is recommended to also examine the public's understanding of the historical, political, and contemporary contexts of science, including the exploration of parapsychology, in context. Public fascination with paranormal phenomena remains as prevalent and therefore research in the area continues to be of public interest. This paper attempts to address gaps in the literature in terms of deepening insights into how parapsychology is discussed online, and how the affordances of a specific social media platform facilitate the conversation.

Footnotes

Author Note

Murphy-Morgan, C & Smith. L. A (2023, August 3-6) Assessing Public Perspectives of Parapsychology through Facebook: A Discourse Analysis Utilizing Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. (Conference presentation abstract) 65th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, Oslo, Norway. Published in The Journal of Parapsychology, 87, 76–78. .

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to thank The Alex Tanous Foundation for Scientific Research for their support with this research. Both authors would like to thank Dr Matthew Hopkins, University of Northampton, for assisting with independent verification of both data analysis and inter-rater reliability agreement.

ORCID iDs

Claire Murphy-Morgan

Lesley-Ann Smith

Ethical Approval

This study was granted ethical approval by Northumbria University Ethics Committee (Ref. 2644).

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Alex Tanous Foundation for Scientific Research, (Scholarship Programme).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Copyright Information

Use of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement (Figure 1) permitted under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence:

References

Aarnio

Lindeman

(2005). Paranormal beliefs, education, and thinking styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(7), 1227–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.04.009

Ahaotu

J. O.

Oshamo

O. A.

(2023). A multimodal discourse analysis of selected social media posts on the# BlackLivesMatter protest. Journal of Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis, 2(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.32996/jpds

Ackers

(1987). Parapsychology is science, but its findings are inconclusive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10(4), 566–568. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00054480

Alcock

J. E.

(1981). Parapsychology, science or magic?: a psychological perspective. Pergamon Press.

Alcock

J. E.

(2023). Parapsychology's past eight years: A lack-of-progress report. Science Confronts the Paranormal: Best of Skeptical Inquirer, 8, 20.

Atmanspacher

Freiburg

I. G. P. P.

(2009). Scientific research between orthodoxy and anomaly. J Sci Explor, 23(3), 273–298. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11850/21916

Auton

H. R.

Pope

Seeger

(2003). It isn't that strange: Paranormal belief and personality traits. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(7), 711–719. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.7.711

Bessi

Zollo

Del Vicario

Puliga

Scala

Caldarelli

Uzzi

Quattrociocchi

(2016). Users polarization on Facebook and YouTube. PLOS ONE, 11(8), e0159641.

Blommaert

Bulcaen

(2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29(1), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.447

10.

Boyd

(2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In A networked self (pp. 47–66). Routledge.

11.

Brewer

P. R.

(2012). The trappings of science: Media messages, scientific authority, and beliefs about paranormal investigators. Science Communication, 35(3), 311–333. (Original work published 2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454599

12.

British Psychological Society (7 June 2021): Ethics Guidelines for internet-mediated research. https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/ethics-guidelines-internet-mediated-research.

13.

Bunge

(1984). What is pseudoscience. The Skeptical Inquirer, 9(1), 36–47.

14.

Burke

Develin

(2016, February). Once more with feeling: Supportive responses to social sharing on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1462–1474. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2835199

15.

Cabbolet

M. J. T. F.

(2025). Tell-Tale signs of pseudoskepticism (bogus skepticism). Journal of Academic Ethics, 23, 913–918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09584-x

16.

Calderbank

(2023). Normalizing the Paranormal: The Present and Future Roles of Affordances in Social Media Platforms (Doctoral dissertation, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY).

17.

Cardeña

(2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000236

18.

Carr

(2015). Higher dimensions of space and time and their implications for psi. In May

E. C.

Marwaha

S. B.

(Eds.), Extrasensory perception: Support, skepticism, and science (pp. 21–61). Praeger/ABC-CLIO.

19.

Castro

Burrows

Wooffitt

(2014). The paranormal is (still) normal: The sociological implications of a survey of paranormal experiences in Great Britain. Sociological Research Online, 19(3), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3355. (Original work published 2014)

20.

Chauvin

Mullet

(2021). Individual differences in paranormal beliefs: The differential role of personality aspects. Current Psychology, 40, 1218–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0047-9

21.

Chris French; Why I now believe parapsychology is a science and not a pseudoscience . (22nd September 2021). https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/09/why-i-now-believe-parapsychologyis-a-science-not-a-pseudoscience/.

22.

Cionea

I. A.

Piercy

C. W.

Carpenter

C. J.

(2017). A profile of arguing behaviors on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.009

23.

Darolia

C. R.

Chugh

(2022). Paranormal beliefs in relation to personality, religiosity and modernity. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(1), 65–69. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/paranormal-beliefs-relation-personality/docview/2651840836/se-2?accountid=12860

24.

Dean

C. E.

Akhtar

Gale

T. M.

Irvine

Grohmann

Laws

K. R.

(2022 May 4). Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research. PLoS One, 17(5), e0267360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267360. PMID: 35507572; PMCID: PMC9067702

25.

Del Vicario

Vivaldo

Bessi

Zollo

Scala

Caldarelli

Quattrociocchi

(2016). Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on facebook. Scientific reports, 6(1), 37825.

26.

Demir

(2020). Patterns of responses to abusive ad hominem attacks: The case of Facebook news-commenting. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(2), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.631015

27.

Downes

S. M.

(1998). Constructivism. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis. https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/constructivism/v-1 .

28.

Drinkwater

K. G.

Dagnall

Denovan

Williams

(2021). Paranormal belief, thinking style and delusion formation: A latent profile analysis of within-individual variations in experience-based paranormal facets. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 670959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670959

29.

Fairclough

(2013). Critical discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 9–20). Routledge.

30.

Fasce

(2022). The explanation-polarisation model: Pseudoscience spreads through explanatory satisfaction and group polarisation. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 10(2), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8051

31.

Fosnot

C. T.

(2013). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. Teachers College Press.

32.

French

(22nd September 2021): Why I now believe parapsychology is a science and not a pseudoscience The Skpetic. https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2021/09/why-i-now-believe-parapsychology-is-a-science-not-a-pseudoscience/

33.

Georgalou

(2017). Discourse and identity on Facebook (p. 304). Bloomsbury Academic.

34.

Gieryn

T. F.

(1983). Boundary-Work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325

35.

Georgakopoulou

(2016). ‘Friendly’comments: Interactional displays of alignment on Facebook and YouTube. In Social media discourse, (dis) identifications and diversities (pp. 189–218). Routledge.

36.

Graham

(2008, March). How to disagree. PaulGraham.com. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

37.

Groome

Roberts

(eds) (2024). Parapsychology: The science of unusual experience. Psychology Press.

38.

Gunnarsson

B. L.

(2014). On the sociohistorical construction of scientific discourse. In The construction of professional discourse (pp. 99–126). Routledge.

39.

Gureilla Skeptics on Wikipedia website . https://www.abouttimeproject.org/gsow.

40.

Hanna

Rohm

Crittenden

V. L.

(2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54(3), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.007

41.

Habernal

Wachsmuth

Gurevych

Stein

(2018). Before name-calling: Dynamics and triggers of ad hominem fallacies in web argumentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06613.

42.

Halpern

Gibbs

(2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.008

43.

Hill

(2012). Amateur paranormal research and investigation groups doing “sciencey” things. Skeptical Inquirer, 36(2), 38–41. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272351954_Amateur_Paranormal_Research_and_Investigation_Groups_Doing_‘Sciencey’_Things

44.

Hill

S. A.

O'Keeffe

Laythe

Dagnall

Drinkwater

Ventola

Houran

(2018). Meme-spirited": I. The VAPUS model for understanding the prevalence and potency of ghost narratives. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 18(2), 117–152. https://search.informit.org/toc/ajp/18/2

45.

Hjelm

(2021). Discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of research methods in the study of religion (pp. 229–244). Routledge.

46.

Hong

S. K.

(2020). Why people don't use Facebook anymore? An investigation into the relationship between the big five personality traits and the motivation to leave Facebook. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1497. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01497

47.

Igwebuike

E. E.

Chimuanya

(2021). Legitimating falsehood in social media: A discourse analysis of political fake news. Discourse & Communication, 15(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/175048132096165

48.

Irwin

H. J.

(1993). Belief in the paranormal: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 87(1), 1–39. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-28369-001

49.

Irwin

H. J.

(2007). Science, nonscience and rejected knowledge: The case of parapsychology. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 7(1), 8–32. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.289717791116783

50.

Irwin

H. J.

Watt

C. A.

(2007). An introduction to parapsychology. McFarland. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.289717791116783

51.

Jackson

J. C.

Dillion

Bastian

, et al. (2023). Supernatural explanations across 114 societies are more common for natural than social phenomena. Nature Human Behaviour, 7, 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01558-0

52.

Kennedy

J. E.

(2013). Can parapsychology move beyond the controversies of retrospective meta-analyses. Journal of Parapsychology, 77(1), 21–37. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-43789-003

53.

Khan

A. A.

Mehmood

Ayub

(2025). Dark personality, paranormal beliefs, and mental well being among young adults and middle adults. Policy Journal of Social Science Review, 3(3), 100–117. https://policyjssr.com/index.php/PJSSR/article/view/155

54.

Kim

J. W.

Masullo Chen

(2020). Exploring the influence of comment tone and content in response to misinformation in social Media news. Journalism Practice, 15(4), 456–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2020.1739550

55.

Koller

(2005). Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: Evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society, 16(2), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505049621. (Original work published 2005)

56.

Kurtz

(2023). Is parapsychology a science? Paranormal Borderlands of Science: Best of Skeptical Inquirer, 5.

57.

Lau

I. Y. M.

Lee

S. L.

Chiu

C. Y.

(2003). Language, cognition, and reality: Constructing shared meanings through communication. In The psychological foundations of culture (pp. 86–109). Psychology Press.

58.

Lawrence

T. R.

(1995). How many factors of paranormal belief are there? A critique of the paranormal belief scale. The Journal of Parapsychology, 59(1), 3. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/how-many-factors-paranormal-belief-are-there/docview/195002262/se-2?accountid=12860

59.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2005). The 10 commandments of helping students distinguish science from pseudoscience in psychology. APS Observer, 18(9), 39–40. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-10-commandments-of-helping-students-distinguish-science-from-pseudoscience-in-psychology

60.

Lillo-Unglaube

Canales-Johnson

Navarrete

Bravo

C. F.

(2014). Toward an experimental account of argumentation: The case of the slippery slope and the ad hominem arguments. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 118947. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01420

61.

Martin

(2018). Persistent bias on wikipedia: Methods and responses. Social Science Computer Review, 36(3), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317715434

62.

Martin

(2021). Policing orthodoxy on wikipedia: Skeptics in action? Journal of Science Communication, 20(02), A09. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20020209

63.

Martini

(2018). Ad hominem arguments, rhetoric, and science communication. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 55(1), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0033

64.

Merton

R. K.

(1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago press.

65.

Millar

(2015). Quantum theory and parapsychology. Parapsychology: A Handbook for the 21st Century, 165–180.

66.

Mitra

(2020). An analysis of the falsification criterion of karl popper: A critical review. Tattva - Journal of Philosophy, 12(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.12726/tjp.23.1

67.

Morris

R. L.

(2000). Parapsychology in the 21st century. Journal of Parapsychology, 64(2), 123–138. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/parapsychology-21st-century/docview/195015341/se-2?accountid=12860

68.

Mousseau

M. C.

(2003). Parapsychology: Science or pseudo-science. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 17(2), 271–282. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286838030_Parapsychology_Science_or_pseudo-science

69.

Murphy-Morgan

McLuhan

Cooper

C. E.

(2021, July). Parapsychology’s battle for the internet: A critical insight into the Wiki problem. In Cyberpsychology Section Annual Conference 2021: Future Directions, Challenges and Opportunities in Cyberpsychology. https://researchportal.northumbria.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/100293755/Cyber_Wiki_Para_BPS_Poster.pdf

70.

Murphy-Morgan

Cooper

C. E.

Smith

L. A.

(2022). Assessing public perspectives of parapsychology through YouTube commentaries. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 22(2), 153–177. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.842894052777850

71.

Murphy-Morgan

Cooper

C. E.

(2024). Parapsychology and cyberpsychology. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 24(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.T2024071600005400548078699

72.

Northcote

(2013). The Paranormal and the politics of truth: A sociological account. Andrews UK Limited.

73.

Parapsychological Association website . https://www.parapsych.org/.

74.

Parker

(1994). Discourse Analysis. In Banister

Burman

Parker

Taylor

Tindall

(Eds.), Qualitative methods in psychology: a research guide. Open University Press.

75.

Pascoal

(2015). Teaching digital rhetoric: Building an argumentative ethos for digital media. POLISSEMA, 15(1), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.34630/polissema.v0i15.2989

76.

Paul Graham; How to Disagree . (March, 2008). https://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

77.

Pennycook

Cheyne

J. A.

Seli

Koehler

D. J.

Fugelsang

J. A.

(2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003

78.

Polletta

Chen

P. C. B.

Anderson

(2008). Is information good for deliberation? Link-posting in an online forum. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), 2–1. https://dx.https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.74

79.

Popper

K. R.

(1963). Science as falsification. Conjectures and Refutations, 1, 33–39.

80.

Reber

A. S.

Alcock

J. E.

(2020). Searching for the impossible: Parapsychology’s elusive quest. American Psychologist, 75(3), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000486

81.

Rhine

J. B.

Pratt

J. G.

(2010). Parapsychology: Frontier science of the mind. Lulu. com.

82.

Rock

A. J.

Storm

Irwin

H. J.

Beischel

(2013). Parapsychology. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Transpersonal Psychology, 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118591277.ch22

83.

Roe

C. A.

(2017). PA Presidential Address 2017: Withering Skepticism. Journal of Parapsychology, 81(2). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322736572_PA_presidential_address_2017_Withering_skepticism

84.

Roe

C. A.

(2023, August). A representative sample survey of paranormal beliefs and experiences 1. Page 4 Introduction By Chairman Of The Conference Programme Committee, 18. https://www.spr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/ABSTRACTS%20BOOK%202019%20website.pdf#page=20

85.

Ruickbie

(2019). The haunters and the hunters: Popular ghost hunting and the pursuit of paranormal experience 1. In The paranormal and popular culture (pp. 92–104). Routledge.

86.

Society for Psychical Research website . https://www.spr.ac.uk/.

87.

SpiritShack: Are Ghosts Real? What 994 people had to say . (26 April 2022) https://www.spiritshack.co.uk/blog/spirituality/are-ghostsreal/?srsltid=AfmBOopBTeOF-700sXtcMc8N8tqUUVfU0V8xZ1tlo3TgoAVeXdldhkh6

88.

Statham

(2022). Critical discourse analysis: A practical introduction to power in language. Routledge.

89.

Stise

Bingaman

Siddika

Dawson

Paintsil

Brewer

P. R.

(2023). Cultivating paranormal beliefs: How television viewing, social media use, and podcast listening predict belief in UFOs. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 32(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2023.2187803

90.

Subramanian

Sridharan

Shu

Liu

(2019). Exploiting emojis for sarcasm detection. In In social, cultural, and behavioral modeling: 12th international conference, SBP-BRiMS 2019, Washington, DC, USA, July 9–12, 2019, proceedings 12 (pp. 70–80). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21741-9_8

91.

Taddicken

Krämer

(2021). Public online engagement with science information: On the road to a theoretical framework and a future research agenda. Journal of Science Communication, 20(3), A05. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030205

92.

Thompson

I. J.

(2022). Theory of multiple planes. The Journal of Parapsychology, 86(2), 295–296.

93.

Vale

Watkins

(2018). Tracking Ghosts and Hauntings. The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/theory-multiple-planes/docview/2843889562/se-2?accountid=12860

94.

Van Dijk

T. A.

(2015). Critical discourse analysis. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 466–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch22

95.

Watt

(2005). Parapsychology’s contribution to psychology: A view from the front line. Journal of Parapsychology, 69(2), 215–231.

96.

Weiler

(2020). Psi wars: TED, Wikipedia and the battle for the Internet. White Crow Books. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/parapsychologys-contribution-psychology-view/docview/195017138/se-2?accountid=12860

97.

Welch

(2018). Argument Quality and Deliberation on Facebook: An Exploratory Study.

98.

West

Trester

A. M.

(2013). Facework on Facebook. Discourse, 2, 133–154. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290545462_Facework_on_facebook_Conversations_on_social_media

99.

Willard

A. K.

Norenzayan

(2013). Cognitive biases explain religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in life’s purpose. Cognition, 129(2), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.07.016

100.

Williams

Denovan

Drinkwater

Dagnall

(2021). Thinking style and paranormal belief: The role of cognitive biases. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 41(3), 274–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366211036435. (Original work published 2022)

101.

Winsper

A. R.

Parsons

S. T.

O’Keeffe

C. J.

(2008, August). Have the lunatics taken over the (haunted) asylum. The Parapsychological Association, Inc. 51st Annual Convention & The Incorporated Society for Psychical Research 32nd Annual Convention, 400–401. https://www.scribd.com/document/345171705/2008-Proceedings-of-Presented-Papers-of-the-Parapsychological-Association-51st-Annual-Convention

102.

Wodak

(2002). Aspects of critical discourse analysis. Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik, 36(10), 5–31. https://www.academia.edu/99491911/Ruth_Wodak_Aspects_of_Critical_Discourse_Analysis

103.

Wright

Oittinen

Brewer

P. R.

(2024). Haunting messages: online videos and public belief in paranormal phenomena. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 27(9). https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.066

104.

Zingrone

N. L.

(2002). Controversy and the problems of parapsychology. Journal of Parapsychology, 66(1), 3–30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286837799_Controversy_and_the_problems_of_parapsychology

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Public Perspectives of Parapsychology on Facebook Utilising Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Parapsychology: An Overview

Scientific Constructivism: Parapsychology in Context

The Role of Facebook and How to Argue

Critical Discourse Analysis: Parapsychology in the Context of Language and Power

Study Rationale

Materials and Methods

Procedure

Results

Phase 1: Frequency Analysis

Phase 2: Critical Discourse Analysis DH 1, 2 & 3

Role of Ad Hominem: The Pseudoscience Debate Goes on

Responding to Tone – “You’re Just not Listening!”

Contradiction: Entrenchment, and What Makes a Sceptic?

Discussion

Footnotes

Author Note

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical Approval

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Copyright Information

References