Editing Synchronicity (section)

== Scientific reception ==
Since their inception, Jung's theories of synchronicity have been highly controversial<ref name=TSEOP/> and have never had [[Scientific consensus|widespread scientific approval]].<ref name=Kerr2013/> [[Scientific scepticism]] regards them as [[pseudoscience]].<ref name=TSEOP/> Likewise, mainstream science does not support paranormal explanations of coincidences.<ref name=JohansenOsman2015>Johansen, M. K., and M. Osman. 2015. "Coincidences: A fundamental consequence of rational cognition". ''[[New Ideas in Psychology]]'' 39:34-44.</ref>

Despite this, synchronicity experiences and the synchronicity principle continue to be studied within [[philosophy]], [[cognitive science]], and [[analytical psychology]].<ref name=Bishop2008/> Synchronicity is widely challenged by the sufficiency of [[probability theory]] in explaining the occurrence of coincidences, the relationship between synchronicity experiences and [[cognitive bias]]es, and doubts about the theory's psychiatric or scientific usefulness.

Psychologist Fritz Levi, a contemporary of Jung, criticised the theory in his 1952 review, published in the periodical {{lang|de|Neue Schweizer Rundschau}} (''New Swiss Observations''). Levi saw Jung's theory as vague in determinability of synchronistic events, saying that Jung never specifically explained his rejection of "magic causality" to which such an acausal principle as synchronicity would be related. He also questioned the theory's usefulness.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bishop|first=Paul|title=Synchronicity and Intellectual Intuition in Kant, Swedenborg, and Jung|location=[[Lewiston, New York]]|publisher=[[Edwin Mellen Press]]|year=2000|isbn=978-0-7734-7593-9|pages=59–62}}</ref>

In a 1981 paper, parapsychologist [[Charles Tart]] writes:

{{quotation|[There is] a danger inherent in the concept of synchronicity. This danger is the temptation to mental laziness. If, in working with paranormal phenomena, I cannot get my experiments to replicate and cannot find any patterns in the results, then, as attached as I am to the idea of causality, it would be very tempting to say, "Well, it's synchronistic, it's forever beyond my understanding," and so (prematurely) give up trying to find a causal explanation. Sloppy use of the concept of synchronicity then becomes a way of being intellectually lazy and dodging our responsibilities.<ref name=Tart1981>{{cite journal|last=Tart|first=Charles|author-link=Charles Tart|year=1981|title=Causality and Synchronicity – Steps Toward Clarification|url=http://www.roma1.infn.it/rog/group/frasca/b/synchtart.html|journal=[[Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research]]|volume=75|pages=121–141|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924091916/http://www.roma1.infn.it/rog/group/frasca/b/synchtart.html|archive-date=2015-09-24}}</ref>}}

[[Robert Todd Carroll]], author of ''[[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]'' in 2003, argues that synchronicity experiences are better explained as [[apophenia]]—the tendency for humans to find significance or meaning where none exists. He states that over a person's lifetime one can be expected to encounter several seemingly-unpredictable coincidences and that there is no need for Jung's metaphysical explanation of these occurrences.<ref>{{cite web|last=Carroll|first=Robert T.|author-link=Robert Todd Carroll|title=Synchronicity|website=[[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]|access-date=September 26, 2021|url=http://skepdic.com/jung.html}} Last updated October 27, 2015.</ref>

In a 2014 interview, emeritus professor and statistician [[David Hand (statistician)|David J. Hand]] states:

{{blockquote|Synchronicity is an attempt to come up with an explanation for the occurrence of highly improbable coincidences between events where there is no causal link. It's based on the premise that existing physics and mathematics cannot explain such things. This is wrong, however—standard science can explain them. That's really the point of the improbability principle. What I have tried to do is pull out and make explicit how physics and mathematics, in the form of [[probability calculus]] does explain why such striking and apparently highly improbable events happen.  There's no need to conjure up other forces or ideas, and there's no need to attribute mystical meaning or significance to their occurrence. In fact, we should {{em|expect}} them to happen, as they do, purely in the natural course of events.<ref name=Forbes2015>Navin, John. 2014. "[https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnavin/2014/02/18/why-coincidences-miracles-and-rare-events-happen-every-day/3/ Why Coincidences, Miracles And Rare Events Happen Every Day]" (interview with [[David Hand (statistician)|David Hand]]). ''[[Forbes]]''. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729205721/https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnavin/2014/02/18/why-coincidences-miracles-and-rare-events-happen-every-day/3/|date=2017-07-29}}.</ref>}}

In a 2015 paper, scholars M. K. Johansen and M. Osman state:

{{quotation|As theories, the main problem with both synchronicity and seriality is that they ignore the possibility that coincidences are a psychological phenomenon and focus instead on the premise that coincidences are examples of actual but hidden structures in the world.<ref name=JohansenOsman2015/>}}