cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (07/16/85)
>From: Mayank Prakash <AI.Mayank@MCC.ARPA> > >The point is not whether these "odd phenomena" are interesting or not, but >is this the appropriate bboard for such discussion. If you are interested in >discussing them, go to the proper forums, such as net.scifi or net.religion or >something. The net is already crowded with messages, and let us at least work >towards keeping things organised so that people don't have to waste time going >thru messages that do not interest them. > >- mayank. I am certainly sympathetic with this viewpoint: parapsychology is a field in its own right and no more a part of physics than it is a branch of psychology (though there are people in the field who will argue for each of these). I would like to point out that most of the discussion so far has been as scientific as most discussions in this newsgroup, a blend of unsophisticated speculation, misconceptions and some more or less knowledgeable discussion. No one has come on and claimed that their spirit guide has revealed to them that Uri Geller really has supernatural powers (though some people have come pretty close to the opposite statement :-)). There are, however, two reasons why I think people interested in physics should be interested in parapsychology. One of these reasons is independent of the "reality" of the phenomena in question. There is an underlying collection of facts on which modern parapsychology rests. These facts are frequently ignored but never knowledgeably denied. Only their interpretation is in contention. The facts are: in a significant fraction (roughly one-third) of experiments in which: 1) The outcome depends on sensitive statistical tests of large numbers of trials; 2) There is an "agent" (e.g., the experimenter) who has a particular outcome they would prefer; 3) All known ways that the outcome could be biased have been removed at, or more commonly, well above, the standards one usually finds in experimental science; the experiment ends up showing a statistically significant effect. It is irrelevant to my point whether or not this is due to "normal" or supposed "paranormal" influences. Of interest to this newsgroup are those classed as PK experiments by parapsychologists, i.e., those in which the data to which the statistical tests are being applied are produced by a "random" physical system, rather than by a human trying to "match" some set of targets. Note that I am not particularly talking about experiments done with entertainers of questionable ethics but those done with "unselected" people or the experimenter him/herself as the agent. What is the difference between this type of experiment and many modern physics experiments? The interpretation given to positive results; the amount of funding; the number of people involved; and the degree to which attempts are made to exclude fraud. I see no reason to assume that whatever causes the anomalies in PK experiments are not equally likely to effect physics experiments. You can certainly claim that the standards for excluding sources of error are higher in physics than in parapsychology, but I think you will have trouble backing up that assertion. If anything, the opposite is the truth, which is why the physicists who come into parapsychology to "put it on a firm, scientific footing" frequently make fools of themselves. You can also recite the oft made complaints about the absence of "replicatability" in parapsychology. The truth seems to be that parapsychological experiments are subject to the same 1-in-3 rule in replication as for the original experiment. This means that when conditions are as described above, there is a 1-in-9 chance that you will get both a spurious result and a spurious replication. I am aware of the fact that the picture of the evidence for PK is not what the Martin Gardner's and the James Randi's of the world would lead you to think it is. It is much easier to announce that a particular experiment (or frequently a set of informal observations) are THE case for psi and then present scenarios (frequently without proof) of how the observations could have occurred "naturally." If people are interested I can post citations to surveys of the evidence for you to examine. I will not belabor the second reason that people who are interested in physics might be interested in parapsychology. It is simply the implications to physics IF psychic phenomena, both PK and ESP, are accepted; and I doubt that anyone reading this who doesn't already accept that possibility will do so without examining some of the primary source material themselves. Most people agree, however, that, almost by definition, the consequences to physics would be profound. As an example, a physicist by the name of Evan Harris Walker claims that the properties implied for any "hidden variables" by the Aspect experiments are, if we assume that at least some of those variables are coupled with brain states, exactly what is needed to explain psi phenomena. This ties in directly with recent discussions in the newsgroup about the "completeness" of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Topher Cooper USENET: ...{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-pbsvax!cooper ARPA/CSNET: cooper%pbsvax.DEC@decwrl Disclaimer: This contains my own opinions, and I am solely responsible for them.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (07/17/85)
[] I promised myself I would ignore this, but I can't resist one last comment. > > There are, however, two reasons why I think people interested in physics should > be interested in parapsychology. One of these reasons is independent of the > "reality" of the phenomena in question. > > There is an underlying collection of facts on which modern parapsychology rests. > These facts are frequently ignored but never knowledgeably denied. Only their > interpretation is in contention. The facts are: in a significant fraction > (roughly one-third) of experiments in which: > > 1) The outcome depends on sensitive statistical tests of large numbers > of trials; > > 2) There is an "agent" (e.g., the experimenter) who has a particular > outcome they would prefer; > > 3) All known ways that the outcome could be biased have been removed > at, or more commonly, well above, the standards one usually finds > in experimental science; > > the experiment ends up showing a statistically significant effect. Number three is critical. Since the experiments usually have unique problems the phrase "standards one usually finds in experimental science" translates to "we know we blew it, but it's not any worse than most physicists would do if they suddenly switched fields". Incidentally the last comment only applies to highly sympathetic researchers (and not always even them). The reason why all this is not particularly interesting to physicists as an experimental endeavor is that the problems here are unique to the field. > backing up that assertion. If anything, the opposite is the truth, which is > why the physicists who come into parapsychology to "put it on a firm, scientific > footing" frequently make fools of themselves. My impression is that the most frequent way they make fools of themselves is by treating alleged psychics with the same trusting attitude they would normally accord to their colleagues. Hence the recommendation (usually ignored) that a competent magician check any experimental procedure. > You can also recite the oft made complaints about the absence of > "replicatability" in parapsychology. The truth seems to be that > parapsychological experiments are subject to the same 1-in-3 rule in > replication as for the original experiment. This means that when conditions > are as described above, there is a 1-in-9 chance that you will get both a > spurious result and a spurious replication. Attempts to replicate experiments in ESP by independent, and skeptical observers seem to have a much higher chance of rejection than 1 in 9. To date it would appear to be closer to 8 (or 9) in 9. > I am aware of the fact that the picture of the evidence for PK is not what the > Martin Gardner's and the James Randi's of the world would lead you to think it > is.......... This is a "fact" that I am not familar with. > If people are interested I can post citations to surveys of the > evidence for you to examine. By all means. However, please give the people in this newsgroup a break and use the mail system. > I will not belabor the second reason that people who are interested in physics > might be interested in parapsychology. It is simply the implications to physics > IF psychic phenomena, both PK and ESP, are accepted; and I doubt that anyone > reading this who doesn't already accept that possibility will do so without > examining some of the primary source material themselves. Most people agree, > however, that, almost by definition, the consequences to physics would be > profound. The implications to physics would also be astounding if it were discovered that pigs could fly. The present state of experimental parapsychology gives me no reason to believe that I should be thinking about the consequences for physics. -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
gwyn@BRL.ARPA (07/18/85)
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL.ARPA> If there really is a definite, TESTABLE, proposal for interaction of brain states with quantum states, be it called "psi" or not, then, yes, that would be a good subject for informed discussion. But if that is just another one of the "fundamental particle theory proves that taoism was right" type of vague suggestions, it is not sufficiently scientific to waste time on. Let's try to keep to matters that can be settled and not debate unexplained mysteries.
mcgeer%ucbkim%Berkeley@sri-unix.ARPA (07/19/85)
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley> >If there really is a definite, TESTABLE, proposal for interaction >of brain states with quantum states, be it called "psi" or not, >then, yes, that would be a good subject for informed discussion. >But if that is just another one of the "fundamental particle theory >proves that taoism was right" type of vague suggestions, it is not >sufficiently scientific to waste time on. Let's try to keep to >matters that can be settled and not debate unexplained mysteries. Bravo. Anything untestable is sheer philosophy. I know a retired physicist, here in Berkeley, who doesn't believe in Newtonian gravity. Instead, he believes that matter emits gravitational waves that vary with the matter's "state": put better, he does not believe in the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Experiments to the contrary don't show the variation because it is too slight to be detected under terrestrial conditions. Experimental error, he says, overrides this effect. Well, I've read his papers. But his definition neither illuminates the nature of gravity (it's simply action-at-a-distance with a twist), nor is it testable (experimental error, remember?). He'll go to his deathbed believing that his theory's right and "big physics" is wrong. But in some sense, *it just doesn't matter*. An untestable theory that says nothing fundamental about the nature of the universe isn't wrong -- it's just content-free. If you think that I put Gellerism, Psi, meta-physics and tao into the same boat as my friend's gravity theories... well, you'd be right, mate. Rick.