jeffma@tekgvs.UUCP (Jeff Mayhew) (01/28/84)
A recent submission to net.physics entitled "Re: My Thoughts on NOVA's
ESP show" included the comment:
"It is nice to see a reasonable rejection of pseudo-science."
Did I see the same NOVA show that you saw? I was appalled at the shallowness
of the treatment, and annoyed at their failure to provide the viewer with
even minimal tools to evaluate claims for themselves. Example: although
a major portion of the program dealt with "remote viewing," I can't recall
ever hearing anyone raise the issue of subjective validation. David Marks
brought up the point about erroneous cueing of the judges, but that's a separate
issue. Targ & Puthoff's star psychic, Price, was subjected to a few far
more sound experiments in which he was asked to obtain simple and direct
information about apparatus in another room. He failed, and the results
weren't published. NOVA reinforced the subjective validation element in
their filming ("re-creation") and dialogue.
Both "psychic archaeology" and "psychic detective work" where presented with
the naivete and gullibility of a newborn babe. For a moment I thought I
was watching "That's Incredible."
The naive viewer will see the program as an airtight case for psi, with
the usual objections from those stodgy 'old skeptics thrown in to "be fair
to them." This is a heinous distortion of the actual situation, and will
represent a serious block to the public's capacity for objectively evaluating
the skeptical point of view (I can still see Tart indignantly labeling the
skeptical scientific community as "ignorant"). After all, they "saw it on
NOVA...."
Jeff Mayhew
teklabs!tekgvs!jeffma