Of modern mediums and susceptible psychologists, and of things we do not know

Bibliographic Data

ID7155133
AuthorsJaap Bos (0000-0001-7878-7577, Utrecht University, the Netherlands, corresponding author)
Year2026
Volume39
Issue1
Pages144-170
Publication date2026-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHistory of the Human Sciences (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0952-6951 • E-ISSN: 1461-720X
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/09526951251363772
OpenAlexW4414911015
LanguageEN
References cited37

Research into psychical phenomena such as telepathy and spiritualism in the 19 th century was so much hampered by fraudulent mediumship that researchers and the subjects found themselves caught up in what Watzlawick called a ‘pragmatic paradox’, i.e. the only way for a researcher to prove that their medium was ‘real’ consisted in trying to expose them as ‘fakes’. This had consequences for the epistemic claims both parties could make. By the early 20 th century, both researchers and mediums freed themselves from this paradox and redefined their respective practices as ‘parapsychology’ and ‘performing telepathy’, and simultaneously reconsidered their epistemic claims. In this article, I shall argue that it is necessary to explore the intricate relations between the epistemic claims raised by mediums and researchers, their social identities, and the struggle to appropriate the object of knowledge by both parties, approached here from a social epistemology perspective. I shall try to answer the question why it may have been reasonable for psychical researchers and parapsychologists to not give up on their research endeavors – even when seemingly insurmountable obstacles stood in the way of gaining knowledge – by referring to the concept of ‘perseverance of ignorance

Reflexivity · Self-knowledge · Social epistemology · Spiritualism · Telepathy · Jungian Analytical Psychology · Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs · Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access