NLI. I found a reference to Forteana [anomalous phenomena] in my preparation for this interview -- your mum bought you a book on Fortean phenomena from Maidstone market when you were 11. An introduction to Forteana was a watershed event in my life as well, enabling me to move beyond my early battles with my father Brian Inglis. Even for a skeptical observer (as I then was and to some extent remain), the folklore of Forteana was endlessly entertaining, and more enjoyable than the pitched battles between rationalists and believers. So my question to you, as a specialist in this field, is: do Charles Fort (1874-1932) and his legacy remain part of your life today?

IB. That book introduced me to the concept that there were phenomena that were arguably beyond our current understanding but, more importantly, it was possible to research them.

Although I may not necessarily always refer to them as Forteana now (anomalous phenomena is a more contemporary term from my perspective), I think Fort’s legacy is still part of who I am. Even though my appreciation for such phenomena may have changed over the years, I can still happily lose myself looking through Forteana.

NLI. I was struck by a quote of yours that I found on-line, in a 2009 interview with J.J. Lumsden: “Over a series of three experiments I found an interesting effect. Remote staring detection did not appear to have any brain activity associated with it on its own, but appeared to modulate the brain activity associated with the processing of other stimuli. But a strange effect in the third experiment led me to suspect some form of artefact was present: essentially there appeared to be a “remote staring effect” even when no starer was present! A final simulation study did find evidence of a tiny artefact that suggested we are very sensitive to extremely small changes between stimuli in experiments. This could have important implications for psychophysics and cognitive neuroscience.”

NLI. That was 10 years ago. Have you encountered any recent experimental phenomena which left a similar impression? (Brian Inglis would have said—there was something there, however evanescent! And he would be mentioning the “observer effect” at this point...). I too find it intriguing.

IB. Alas, I’ve not encountered anything quite so intriguing. I keep wanting to return to that research, but other things keep taking me away!

That being said, I did enjoy reporting on a psychometry study conducted with Abigail Booth and Jane Montague in 2017 looking and psychic and non-psychic claimants. We used a mixed-methods approach where our results indicated that the non-psychics were rated as more accurate than psychics, but this was arguably due to the latter using Barnum-style statements. As the use of hyperbolic language is a criticism that has been levelled at psychics in the past, it was intriguing to find a reversal of the narrative.

NLI. What anomalistic experiences have you encountered that affected you personally, perhaps catching you unawares (i.e., not in the laboratory)? Were they pleasant or unpleasant?

IB. I can’t really claim to have experienced anything that I would solidly refer to as “anomalistic”. Prior to my undergraduate degree I led a team of “ghosthunters” in researching some purportedly haunted locations. If you had asked me this question at that time I might have responded that I had experienced some interesting anomalous phenomena, but as I learnt more about psychological mechanisms during my degrees I reinterpreted such experiences as being more likely due to group influences, fatigue, confirmation biases, etc.

Probably the most unpleasant experience I had was coughing up dust after spending days down in the Edinburgh Vaults!

NLI. What do skeptical or rationalist groups mean to you, and do you speak to them? Do you believe they play a useful function in raising awareness about critical thinking? I am thinking in particular of CSICOP/CSI, which nowadays devotes a lot of column inches to homeopathy and Gwyneth Paltrow; for me their heyday was in the 70s and 80s—the stakes seemed higher. Some people in the field actually prefer it when skeptical groups cast a wider net and address a broader range of topics, even if that means leaving Uri Geller behind...

IB. I think that they can have a useful function, particularly in the era of “fake news”, etc, but it also depends upon the approach. I learnt a lot from Professor Bob Morris’ (my PhD Supervisor until his death) soft methods for convincing people. Even though he was the only Professor of Parapsychology in the world at that point, he was remarkably good friends with highly skeptical individuals due to his humour and gentle approach with people. This is a far better method of helping people to understand your perspective than confrontation.

NLI. Is there any scientific or parascientific discovery you would relish seeing in your lifetime, and why (mine would be confirmation of the existence of extraterrestrial life)?

IB. The older I get I think confirmation of life-after-death would be a nice one!

NLI. What trends (good and bad) have you observed in academic life during your years at Derby? What are the ups and downs of dealing with students (under- and post-graduates)? You have been associated with the Universities of Edinburgh and Coventry: How do these institutions differ in their level of encouragement and support for a scholar with your interests?

IB. We have definitely seen an increased metricization of Higher Education across the sector, with students being increasingly viewed as “customers” (with both positive and negative connotations) and the need to demonstrate “value for money”. Whilst it can be perceived as a challenge to teach an area such as parapsychology where it is difficult to see how it can support future career choices for students, I have generally been able to show how positive the inclusion of this area is to our undergraduate degree. It has consistently been one of our more popular optional modules, and each year a small number of students come to study with us specifically because we cover such material. We are able to demonstrate how we can apply research methods training to research such difficult and contentious topics, and it works as a wonderful vehicle for students to learn to think more critically.

I have been very fortunate that the University of Derby has always been highly encouraging and supportive of my interests and research. There are several staff who share my interests, even if they have not originally come from a parapsychology background. Learning from Bob Morris, I have always attempted to be inclusive and encourage a variety of approaches and I think this has helped to embed the examination of such beliefs and phenomena more broadly and make this “normal”.

NLI. Other people in the psi field lament the grant funding challenges. Financial issues are also central to employability. In an on-line interview with Dyanna Gallaher, you recommended the following as a starting point for those interested in pursuing careers in the field, followed by postgraduate study. Do you follow the careers of former students?

IB. A grounding in psychology will also help to provide a good grounding in parapsychology. It also enables you to be more employable. There are relatively few jobs in parapsychology, and having a background in other areas of psychology or similar disciplines can help when attempting to find a job after your degree(s). So, stage one of the process of becoming a “parapsychologist” would be a B.Sc in Psychology (3-4 yrs). Some coverage of parapsychology during this time is helpful, although not essential.

I think my advice still stands. I tried to keep in touch with as many of my students as possible, and I am particularly pleased that Dr Malcolm Schofield, who did follow the path above, is now a colleague whom I thoroughly enjoy working with.

NLI. Tell me more about the origins of your interest in psychometric test use, and any scientific controversies associated with it? Please feel free to select any aspect or dimension you would prefer to emphasize.

IB. For me, my interests in this subject stem broadly from research into the belief in and experiences of remote staring detection during my PhD. This then developed into an interest in belief more broadly, which then developed further into examining other psychological constructs and ensuring that they are investigated as robustly as possible, using appropriate psychometric methods.

For me, belief has become a vital element of how we understand people. In many respects I think that belief is the prism through which we view the world, influencing our interpretations of reality. This goes beyond religious or paranormal beliefs to scientific beliefs, to cover other beliefs such as climate change or “fake news”.

Of course, when examining such psychological constructs we have to recognise the flaws associated with self-report measures and how they can be misinterpreted. It is essential that the results are not over-interpreted and that the terms used are appropriate. For example, I have always had an issue with the term “Cognitive Deficits Hypothesis” in the paranormal belief literature, so I was pleased when my (former) PhD student Dr Malcolm Schofield proposed the term “Cognitive Differences Hypothesis”, which seems far more accurate when current research is taken into account.

NLI. Which writers and researchers in this field do you rate most highly?

IB. I have always enjoyed reading and learning from Harvey Irwin’s research, and Ed May has often provided insightful observations. I always encourage my students to read the contributions that early researchers in the field made, including the founders of the Society for Psychical Research and founders of psychology who often researched what we would now refer to as parapsychology; although approaches may have changed, what they did formed the bedrock of what we do now.

NLI. What does the name Arthur Koestler suggest to you (My father Brian Inglis set up KIB with Koestler and Instone Bloomfield). Do you find that his intellectual reputation has been tarnished among your students and colleagues?

IB. Koestler is a challenging figure to reconcile for me. I started at Edinburgh around the time when his bust was removed from public display due to the negative aspects of his past coming to light. I have to recognise that it is his legacy that helped create an environment where like-minded people could come together to research parapsychology. But equally there are aspects of who he was that I cannot condone.

When I provide my students with a brief history of parapsychology, I do cover the fact that Koestler’s endowment set up the position of Koestler Professor of Parapsychology, but I equally discuss that it was John Beloff who lobbied for it to be at Edinburgh, and Bob Morris who made it a success; two individuals who were very different to Koestler. I point out to my students some of the issues with Koestler, but encourage them to make up their own minds. I don’t think we should shy aware from the positive and negative legacies of historical figures, but rather help students to develop the tools to make their own evaluations.

Featured Interviews