Is parapsychology a pseudo-science? Many believe that the Eighteenth century philosopher David Hume showed, in effect, that it must be. In this article, Terence Penelhum explains and endorses Hume's arguments concerning testimony of the miraculous, but also explains why he believes there is now evidence of sufficient quality concerning the paranormal to make further investigation scientifically worth-while.

Do some people have a paranormal power to ‘see’ into the future? There are innumerable anecdotes of events foretold, of course. But is there any scientific evidence of the ability? Fiona Steinkamp, a leading investigator of the paranormal, believes there is.

Dean Radin, laboratory director at The Institute of Noetic Sciences (California, USA), argues that telepathy is real, and suggests that quantum mechanics may ultimately provide an explanation of how it works.

The world is increasingly full of junk science. Pseudo-scientific claims are rife, and the public is regularly misled. Here, the physicist Robert Park points out seven warning signs of pseudo-science. Does parapsychology exhibit any of these warning signs? Read on to find out…

Peter King asks whether parapsychologists take too much for granted when they talk of ‘pre-cognition’ and indeed ‘para-psychology’. Even if there are measurable paranormal phenomena to be explained, it is unclear whether they have much to do with either cognition or psychology. Isn't it also about time, asks King, that investigators of the paranormal started coming up with theories to explain what they observe?

Suppose that paranormal phenomena really exist. Telepathy, precognition, psychokinesis, clairvoyance, and communication with the dead actually take place. In this article, Timothy Sprigge asks to what extent this would impact on our world view. In particular, how would it affect science, philosophy and religion?

Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces pointers on thinking clearly and rigorously. Here I tell a cautionary tale about flying saucers and take a brief look at the virtues of ‘open-mindedness’.

In this regular series, Michael Clark, editor of Analysis, presents some of the most intriguing philosophical paradoxes. Here we examine the paradox of Buridan's ass.

Is morality relative? Might what is morally ‘right’ for one culture be morally ‘wrong’ for another? Issue two contained two pieces (one by myself) arguing against this kind of moral relativism. Here, Michael Lacewing suggests that there may be more truth in relativism than was suggested.

Issue two contained three pieces arguing against relativism: the view that what is true from one individual's or community's perspective might be false from another, that there is no ‘absolute’ truth on any issue. Here David Mills, an anthropologist, argues that, even if we are right to reject philosophical relativism, there is still value in embracing a methodological form of relativism.

The recent murder of two schoolgirls in Soham provoked calls for a return of the death penalty. Piers Benn examines the case for execution.

Many people are upset by Richard Dawkins. Mary Midgley, in particular, has argued that Dawkins'‘crude, cheap, blurred genetics […] is the kingpin of his crude, cheap, blurred psychology. ’Dawkins is often also suspected of having sinister political motives, and of morally condoning selfish behaviour. Here, Jeremy Stangroom explains how he believes Midgley and others have systematically misunderstood Dawkins.

You have a rich inner life of conscious experiences. For example, you have pains and other sensations. And you have sensory experiences, such as that produced by chewing on something bitter. Scientists are currently puzzling over how to explain this inner life in scientific terms. Can we, for example, ‘explain’ consciousness by appealing to certain facts about our brains?

Here, Oswald Hanfling explains why he believes the scientific ‘problem’ of ‘explaining’ consciousness is ultimately a pseudo-problem. There is no problem!