lew@ihuxr.UUCP (01/20/84)
[ I posted this yesterday, but it didn't get out. Last night I bought Martin Gardner's SCIENCE: GOOD, BAD, AND BOGUS and stayed up late reading most of the parts relevant to Targ and Puthoff, which is a lot. I'll post my comments on this to net.books ] I'd like to comment on the "remote viewing" experiments described in the recent NOVA ESP show. First, I think that if you accept Targ and Puthoff's experiment at face value, you'd have to believe that the subject really had the power of remote viewing. The attempts to find loopholes in the procedures seemed beside the point. For my part, I cannot accept that the subject had the power of remote viewing, or indeed that such a power exists. I know this opens me to charges of close-mindedness, so I would like to state the reasons that I reject these claims. I'll try to organize these into categories. 1. THEY'RE NOTHING NEW - The claims are identical with the power of crystal ball gazing that have existed for millenia. These were once accepted as a matter of course before they were rejected in the enthusiasm of the Enlightment. I still share this enthusiasm for a new view of the world. 2. LACK OF MECHANISM - "Have I not eyes, with which to see?" That this power should be isomorphic with a physically placed aerial camera seems incomprehensible. Just think about this. It advances the view that the physical world is simply a correlate of some sort of dream world. In fact the whole realm of ESP breaks so sharply from the scientific view, which consists in modelling the world, that I don't hesitate to place it outside of science. Parapsychologists are eager for the mantle of Science, but they practice it little. The whole aim of these experiments is to establish the credibility of these mental powers, not to elucidate or advance them. What does rubbing a gelatinous suspension of silver particles have to do with conjuring images of remote places? Don't ask. In one sequence of the show, a remote viewer answered an objection to her claim to have drawn an island from remote viewing. The objection was that she might have drawn on some knowledge of geography and drawn the island from memory after being shown its coordinates. Her answer was that she could do this even when the coordinates were shown in binary form. Here the model is clear. The coordinates, whatever their form, embody the QUINTESSENCE of the island. I'm sorry, but I just puke on this sort of thing. 3. WHAT WOULDN'T YOU BELIEVE? If someone claimed to have conducted a controlled experiment showing that a subject could lift a diesel locomotive off the ground, would you believe it? I think few would. I also think this is the reason no such claims are made. The claims made show no respect for physics, but ARE bound by the limits of public credulity. 4. WHAT CAN'T THEY DO? A lot. Why can't a remote viewer just tell us the composition of the earth's core? Answer: They operate in the subjective world of human experience, not the physical world. I find this most obvious in the case of telekinesis. The range of feats claimed encompass acts which would require expenditures of energy varying over many orders of magnitude. Yet this never correlates with the apparent difficulty of the feat, just as the Incredible Hulk struggles equally with a file cabinet, and an auto compactor. Aside from the question of the reality of these powers, I'm disturbed by the social establishment of ESP groups in the form of corporations and so on. I see this leading not forward, but backward - to a time when wizards held sway. Finally, I like to think that I maintain an open mind to the extent that: 1) I totally respect everyones right to their opinion on these issues, and I don't lower my personal respect for anyone on the basis of them - and 2) I don't plan to cease reading, watching and thinking about the subject. My current opinion is firmly held, but I by no means give it the status of an unshakable conviction. Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
stekas@hou2g.UUCP (01/21/84)
Lew Mammel is very correct to call attention to the physical implications
of ESP/PSI. If remote viewing and psychokinesis are real then physics
is out the window. Plain and simple.
Attempts to reconcile physics and PSI by calling PSI as a new force
like gravity or electricity and magnetism just won't work. First off,
PSI shatters the entire concept of forces being mediated by particles.
PSI forces "know" to couple strongly to the matter in a PSIcho's mind,
to turn off the coupling while passing through walls and such,
and then turn back on at a remote location to observe some scene
or move a salt shaker. Forces mediated by dumb particles just can't
do that kind of thing.
The experiments shown on Nova were so hokey. First there's a woman
moving a metal salt shaker across a table. Why not a glass one so I
can be sure no magnets were involved? Then the camera shows some
guy shaking his hands - next shot a light pops on on a table covered
with equipment. Then I'm supposed to believe some guy viewing a
far off scene and believe that the recreation I'm seeing is an
authentic one. Common Nova, give us a break!
Jimedhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (01/23/84)
------------------------------ Lew Mammel mentions Martin Gardner's book `Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus'. This book is a collection of various articles the author has written over the years, many with postscripts describing reactions to the original along with subsequently discovered facts. In a word, it is fascinating. Gardner tackles just about every facet of psuedoscience, from Velikovsky to biorhythm to Uri Geller, and, of course, Puthoff & Targ. He is scrupulous with his facts, and is usually careful to give references. It is simply astonishing what some well-credentialed `scientists' will believe, or how easily they are fooled. Gardner's prose is lucid (as readers of his former column in Scientific American will atest). There is a certain amount of repetition and lack of cohesion due to the large number of sources for the book's chapters, but this makes it all the better for `browsing'. For a no-holds-barred attack on psuedoscience and psuedoscientists, nothing beats James Randi's `Flim-Flam!'. Randi (`The Amazing') is a professional magician. He exposes psychic experimentation for what it is--poorly designed experiments with few controls, such that even an amateur magician has no problem producing `paranormal' results. What's more, records of such experiments often show evidence of such tampering, yet many researchers ignore or discard such results. He is especially damning of Puthoff and Targ, calling them `the Laurel and Hardy of Psi', and examines both their ESP and remote viewing experiments. His general opinion is that parapsychologists are simply duped by their subjects, or are observing the results of unconcious cueing or faulty equipment. The antidote is proper experimental controls, and his claim is that all experiments where such controls are rigorously applied have turned up negative. Randi has put up a $10,000 offer to anyone who can present evidence of paranormal powers in his presence in a controlled experiment. His descriptions of the performances of people who try to take him up on his offer are often quite funny. Though Randi is hardly a professional writer, the book reads clearly and my attention never flagged. The index and bibliography (which the Gardner book lacked) are both quite good. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall (UUCP) edhall@rand-unix (ARPA)