cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (10/02/85)
>> In article <45200019@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcla.UUCP writes: >> >I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >> >experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >> >scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >> >was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >> >always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >> >atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >> >not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. >> >> Can you say straw-man? I knew you could. > > Where's the 'straw man'? > > David Moews > ...decvax!harvard!h-sc4!moews > moews%h-sc4@harvard.arpa A "straw man" is when a debater invents an easily refuted argument to his/her thesis, then proceeds to refute it, when that argument does not represent the opponent's viewpoint. Clearly the claim that "scientific rigor contributes to an atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur." is an easily refuted argument. We need only establish that the opponents of the view which is being put forward are not likely to make such an argument. I, as a minor member of the parapsychological community, don't find that argument as particularly representative of the views of that community. To support the view that the opinion is NOT a straw man, a legitimate representative of the parapsychological community must be found who accepts it as a reasonable alternative. Jim Balter, after quoting me a little more, attempts to do just that. >> >>I suppose there are people who would make the above claim. There are also >>many who would claim that Laetrile cures cancer, whatever the statistics say. >>This in no way reflects on legitimate cancer researchers. > >It is not a straw man when major psi types like Thelma Moss use this excuse. > >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) Given that the discussion was about an attempt to scientifically evaluate psi phenomena, I took as the meaningful group which the "those" referred to as the scientific parapsychological community, specifically those who feel that scientific evidence for psi phenomena exists. There are of course many people who claim to be parapsychologists who are not. These include both non-scientific types (for example some psychics) and people with some technical or scientific qualifications who are not at all qualified in parapsychology. We can start by excluding them from the discussion. Any scientific field will have people with a whole range of competences. Dr. Moss, in my opinion is only slightly within the outer fringe of the legitimate parapsychological community. For example, I don't know of any recent publications by her in the refereed journals or conferences (for that matter I don't remember any older ones either, though I have a nagging feeling that I've seen at least one). Nevertheless, if she has made such a statement, my claim that the argument was a straw man, would not be correct (the argument would still come very close since I would still claim it to be a minority opinion). Although it is possible that Dr. Moss has said such a thing, I don't know of it, and think that it is unlikely. Does anyone have a citation? What Dr. Moss may well have said, is a lot less broad, and a lot less easy to knock down: that controls applied without taking into account what little we know about psi may well interfere with the process. Note that this is a very different statement than that rigorous controls will NECESSARILY preclude psi phenomena. Let's make an exaggerated analogy. Let's say that I have heard that there are people, called batters, who claim that they are frequently able to hit a small ball, moving at high speed, with a narrow stick. I find this an unlikely claim to say the least: after all, known hand/eye reaction times would preclude such abilities. I decide to test the claim, and gather up a collection of self-proclaimed batters. But wait, they might be using some kind of concealed device, such as an air cannon, to create the appearance of successfully striking the ball. To control for this, I tie there hands behind their back. When the fail to hit the ball, have I presented reasonable evidence that they cheated and are not actually able to accomplish the feat? Are any who criticize the nature of my controls claiming that, in general, rigorous controls prevent the occurrence of "batting" phenomena? A hostile atmosphere does seem to interfere with the eliciting of psi phenomena, but, with some care and forethought, rigorous controls can be applied in an atmosphere of open-minded skepticism. When this is done, psi phenomena frequently (not always) occur. 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.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/03/85)
>>>>I recall what Stephen Hawking said about his youthful >>>>experiences with experiments in the paranormal. He noticed that when >>>>scientific rigor was enforced there were no successes, but when it is >>>>was not, the number of successes jumped sharply. Of course, there are >>>>always those who will claim that scientific rigor contributes to an >>>>atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur. If that's >>>>not wishful thinking, I don't know what is. [ROSEN] >>>Can you say straw-man? I knew you could. [BILL GATES?] >> Where's the 'straw man'? [DAVID MOEWS -- good question!!!!] > A "straw man" is when a debater invents an easily refuted argument to his/her > thesis, then proceeds to refute it, when that argument does not represent the > opponent's viewpoint. Clearly the claim that "scientific rigor contributes to > an atmosphere of disbelief in which such phenomena cannot occur." is an easily > refuted argument. We need only establish that the opponents of the view which > is being put forward are not likely to make such an argument. [COOPER] But, alas, they do, every time serious scientific rigor shows up what they claim to be true. The fact remains that the only trials at which parapsychological "success" have occurred are those for which rigorous analytical procedures were not followed. Careful examination of what really goes on when psychic powers are demonstrated persistently show fraud. >>>I suppose there are people who would make the above claim. There are also >>>many who would claim that Laetrile cures cancer, whatever the statistics say. >>>This in no way reflects on legitimate cancer researchers. [GATES?] >>It is not a straw man when major psi types like Thelma Moss use this excuse. >>-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) > Given that the discussion was about an attempt to scientifically evaluate psi > phenomena, I took as the meaningful group which the "those" referred to as > the scientific parapsychological community, specifically those who feel that > scientific evidence for psi phenomena exists. There are of course many > people who claim to be parapsychologists who are not. These include both > non-scientific types (for example some psychics) and people with some > technical or scientific qualifications who are not at all qualified in > parapsychology. We can start by excluding them from the discussion. What are we left with? > Nevertheless, if she has made such a statement, my claim that the argument > was a straw man, would not be correct (the argument would still come very > close since I would still claim it to be a minority opinion). Although it is > possible that Dr. Moss has said such a thing, I don't know of it, and think > that it is unlikely. Does anyone have a citation? I think it highly likely given that it the only "excuse" left after rigorous analysis shows the causes of the phenomena to be quite simple and explainable (blowing "under one's breath", etc.). > What Dr. Moss may well have said, is a lot less broad, and a lot less easy to > knock down: that controls applied without taking into account what little > we know about psi may well interfere with the process. Note that this is > a very different statement than that rigorous controls will NECESSARILY > preclude psi phenomena. Yet it is THAT statement which HAS been used, thus making the notion that this a "straw man" invalid. > Let's make an exaggerated analogy. Let's say that I have heard that there are > people, called batters, who claim that they are frequently able to hit a small > ball, moving at high speed, with a narrow stick. I find this an unlikely > claim to say the least: after all, known hand/eye reaction times would > preclude such abilities. I decide to test the claim, and gather up a > collection of self-proclaimed batters. But wait, they might be using some > kind of concealed device, such as an air cannon, to create the appearance of > successfully striking the ball. To control for this, I tie there hands behind > their back. When the fail to hit the ball, have I presented reasonable > evidence that they cheated and are not actually able to accomplish the feat? > Are any who criticize the nature of my controls claiming that, in general, > rigorous controls prevent the occurrence of "batting" phenomena? I'd say what a poor design for the experiment. Why not simply take film of the event and examine the results in slow motion? Unfortunately, many psi proponents claim that their hands are tied behind their backs (metaphorically speaking) when "forced" to adhere to scientific method. It is a poor analogy, because such methodology is used for the purpose of ensuring credible results, thus freeing them of the shackles of having to defend themselves against charges of shoddiness in analysis. The fact that so many claim not to want any part of that (claiming that such rigor will interfere with the results) tells me that only the shoddy technique will bring results, which essentially means no viable results at all. > A hostile atmosphere does seem to interfere with the eliciting of psi > phenomena, but, with some care and forethought, rigorous controls can be > applied in an atmosphere of open-minded skepticism. When this is done, psi > phenomena frequently (not always) occur. Since any skepticism is deemed "hostility" ("You've gotta believe!" ---famous psi scholar Dr. Tug McGraw :-), and since skepticism is a necessary part of rigorous analysis, what conclusions can we draw? -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (10/09/85)
>> Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many >> (conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists >> would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that >> the experiment were a parapsychology experiment. > > The point is that conditions which are rigorous for an experiment > in the natural sciences are not rigorous enough for a parapsychology > experiment. Electrons cannot attempt to cheat or violate the experimental > conditions; people can, and they have been observed to do so in many > previous parapsychology experiments. This means that the experimental > conditions must be made much more rigorous than in other sciences (to > completely rule out the possibility of cheating.) > > David Moews > ...decvax!harvard!h-sc4!moews > moews%h-sc4@harvard.arpa It is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to be sure when dealing with "professional psychics" that no cheating is going on. Parapsychology has been aware of this for a long time: the Society for Psychical Research got into hot water with many of its financial backers (mostly Spiritualists) soon after it was founded in the 1880's. This was because they set up a policy of NOT investigating professional mediums because of the high risk of cheating. Although the Uri Gellers of the world get most of the publicity, only a very small percentage of the laboratory work has been with such people. Of course, non-professionals are perfectly capable of trying to cheat, and even of using fairly sophisticated techniques to do so. But such tests rarely depend on a single person or even a small group of people scoring high. Subjects are frequently gotten the same way as for psychology experiments: classes of undergraduate students, tested in class. High school students, grade school students, the experimenters themselves, and, of course, volunteers are also used. Still, one must take some care against fraud, but, this is not very difficult in a well designed experiment. The problems with professional psychics is that they have specific "claims" to be tested, and these claims, to a greater-or- lesser degree control the experimental situation. I agree, however: any scientific work with human subjects should include precautions against fraud; the temptation to pull a prank exists when there is no other motivation. It is foolish, however, to feel that it is ever possible to completely rule out possibility of cheating IN ANY experiment, even in the physical sciences: electrons cannot cheat but the janitor, lab technician or experimenter's spouse can. The motivation to cheat in parapsychological experiments with "unselected" subjects is not much (if any) higher than in any other field, and unlike other fields such precautions are taken. So in this limited sense the standards ARE more rigorous. 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.
tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) (10/12/85)
[]
Since you are apparently quite familiar with the
literature of experimental parapsychology, I would invite you to
describe for the readers of this newsgroup some of the "best" work, in
your opinion. That is, what do you take to be the most decisive
experimental demonstrations of psi?
I make this request not to engage in "psi-baiting", but because I
think there are important philosophical issues involved, whatever
one's conclusions about psi might be.
Todd Moody {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody
Philosophy Department
St. Joseph's U.
Philadelphia, PA 19131cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (10/16/85)
>> Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many >> (conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists >> would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that >> the experiment were a parapsychology experiment. > >If that is true, why do most scientists, and most non-parapsychological >scientists who have investigated, reject it? What a very complicated question for a single sentence. It presupposes so much. First I want to make sure that we agree on what the referents of the pronouns are: "that" (in "If *that* is true") -- There is a large body of rigorously obtained, positive, parapsychological experiments. "it" (in "... reject *it*?") -- the existence of psi phenomena. And we better get some key terms defined: Psi phenomena -- For our purposes: either ESP or PK. ESP -- ESP is said to manifest when a subject (usually human) behaves in a way correlated with information from which they are isolated on known physical channels. PK -- PK is said to manifest when an external system (usually with a large "random" component to its behavior) isolated in all known physical ways from a subject (usually human), acts in a way correlated with information available to the subject, but also isolated from directly influencing the external system. In both the definition of ESP and PK it is assumed that chance and patterned correlation (e.g., the subject alternates "guesses" which corresponds to to an alternation of "targets") have been eliminated statistically as an explanation. Note that these definitions are purely operational: they presuppose no mode of action, physical or non-physical. In practice, a little bit more of a model of what is going on is usually assumed: ESP is viewed as the subjects "knowing" what they have no ordinary way of knowing and PK is viewed as the subjects effecting the external system when they have no ordinary way of doing so. These working definitions are more convenient, but are not thought to be fully justified by the existing evidence. And now let's deal with the presuppositions in the question: Presupposition #1: Most scientists reject the existence of psi. I don't have the information with me but my impression is that most surveys show the majority (by a small margin) of scientists' opinions range from "psi is likely" to "psi has been established." Offhand, the only exception I know was a survey of "elite scientists." This showed about only about 1/3 accepting psi phenomena as at least probable. "Elite scientists" was defined essentially as people of power in the scientific community. No attempt was made to separate administrators from "top scientists." Various explanations might explain why this group is more against parapsychology than the mainstream. Some reflect positively on parapsychology, some negatively, and most are neutral. Presupposition #2: Most non-parapsychological scientists who have investigated (the existing body of parapsychological evidence) reject the existence of psi. This might be true, I don't know. What is your basis for this statement? The one or two non-parapsychological scientists who have investigated who I have met personally accept the evidence as fairly conclusive, but my sampling may well be biased. There are clearly non-parapsychological scientists who know about the evidence but nevertheless do not accept the existence of psi as proven, but is it a majority? It seems to me that most of the outspoken critics of parapsychology are either not scientists or do not seem to be aware of the body of evidence for parapsychology (usually both). They therefore are not included in the set of people under discussion. Very few non-parapsychologists seem to be aware of the scientific literature of the field. Most negative "investigations" of parapsychology have been instead investigations either of the claims of professional psychics, most of whom are considered obvious frauds by parapsychologists (whatever the psychics claim), or of particular pieces of research, generally done by unqualified people. Such investigations say nothing about the body of evidence to which I refer: if it has not appeared in the refereed technical organs of parapsychology it is not part of the body of scientific evidence. Even if a particular piece of research has appeared in that body has been shown to be flawed in some way, it still must be established by the critic that this flaw is representative of the ENTIRE body, before it can be taken as meaningful. If I point out the obvious flaw in the Aspect experiments, I have in no way invalidated all evidence for QM. Presupposition #3: The opinions of non-parapsychological scientists who have investigated the claims of parapsychology are representative of the opinions that would be held by all scientists if they also investigated. The motivations of those scientists who have chosen to investigate the evidence is obviously a confounding factor (whether for or against psi is unclear once you've eliminated investigators in the field). There is also another factor which biases this grouping against psi. Very few scientifically oriented people deny the monumental significance that psi would have *if* it were shown to exist. Scientists who have investigated the evidence and found it positive have frequently become involved in parapsychology, at least part time (given the lack of funds, most parapsychology is done part-time or spare-time). They then become excluded from your grouping of "non-parapsychological scientists." It also seems a bit odd to exclude at the outset people working in a field, presumably these people are generally the most knowledgeable. What would your reaction be if a "scientific" creationist excluded from the outset as "biased" the opinions of anyone working in biology, physics, geology or related fields? Presupposition #4: The opinions of scientists as a whole, as opposed to those who have investigated the matter, mean anything. As I tried to indicate above, the number of scientists who have actually investigated the evidence which I'm referring to is very small. The opinions of scientists as a whole is made up overwhelmingly of the opinions of those who have not investigated the evidence, who indeed, are at best barely aware of its existence. I don't see what relevance those opinions, positive or negative, have. Presupposition #5: If there was a large body of rigorous experiments supporting the existence of psi phenomena, then the majority of scientists who have investigated the existing evidence would accept the existence of psi. First, "a large body of rigorous experiments" is not equivalent to a "body of conclusive evidence." One can accept the existence of evidence and still feel that the issue is open. Second, scientists are human, not purely objective; and this issue strikes at some very fundamental assumptions of the philosophy of science as it is found in practice. No this is not the "Galileo" argument ("'They' thought Galileo was crazy, and 'They' think I am; Galileo was right; therefore I am also right"). In general, if you go with the majority of informed scientists, then you will be right much more often then if you use the opposite strategy. Sometimes, however, you will be wrong. I am telling you that the evidence exists (this is fact, not opinion), and that it is of as high quality as any other large body of evidence on a complex issue (this is my own evaluation). I am recommending that you check for yourself. It is your privilege to feel that the a priori probability of me being correct is low enough so that it is not worth your time to check; but until you have checked, you are not in a position to refute my statement. Presupposition #6?: If there were anything to it, "they" would have told me. I put a question mark on this one, since I am not sure it is a presupposition you actually made. It is one which I run into frequently, and if you made it, some of the more explicit presuppositions would result. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." Particularly when the lack is in your knowledge of any evidence, rather than an actual lack of evidence. "They" have not told you because most of "them" don't know. Those very few who do know have good psychological (not, again in my opinion, scientific) reasons for rejecting the evidence. Those who know and accept the evidence have a great deal to lose by admitting it. Those who know, accept and admit it find that publication in mainstream science publications is a process where editors and publishers must be willing to accept (not necessarily wholeheartedly) and admit to that acceptance as well. Those who surmount all those hurdles find themselves labeled as a member of a small minority of "nuts," whose opinions may be safely dismissed. Am I proposing a conspiracy? Of course not: neither anything so sinister nor so easy to deal with. I am simply saying that there are a number of aspects of parapsychology which run headlong against certain factors in the sociology and psychology of contemporary science. So where does that leave us? There are a very few scientists who have made a thorough investigation of the rigorous evidence for psi phenomena. Of those, some accept the evidence, some reject it and some are "agnostic." This leaves us with a legitimate question: why do some informed scientists fail to accept the evidence at face value? I was going to answer this question here, but decided not to for several reasons: 1) this is getting rather long, 2) I should give people the opportunity to express an interest in the answer, and 3) I should provide anyone in the category who is out there with the opportunity to speak for themselves before I put words in their mouth. > Please document these claims. >Parapsychology is not widely accepted in the scientific community precisely >because it has *not* been demonstrated in the way you calim. > Jim Balter (ima!jim) Glad to, but once again I will do so in a separate posting. 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.
cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (10/22/85)
>>Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many >>(conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists >>would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that >>the experiment were a parapsychology experiment. > > . . . Please document these claims. >Parapsychology is not widely accepted in the scientific community precisely >because it has *not* been demonstrated in the way you calim. > >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) Glad to. It is obviously impractical for me to personally summarize over the net a literature consisting of over 3000 papers, and I'm sure that no one expects me to. Instead I'll give some useful citations and anyone interested can try to check them out themselves. Unfortunately even the major publications are hard to find in libraries so you may have to look around some. There are lots of primary sources but two stand out: *The Journal of Parapsychology*: this is the journal started by J.B. Rhine in the late 30's. Much of the early work, as in any field, is flawed but these flaws were quickly found and corrected. Early issues are interesting to read for this very reason: one can watch a new science being born. Standards have been high throughout the Journal's lifetime. A useful feature is the section of abstracts in each issue. This includes works published elsewhere and also work that, for one reason or another, remains unpublished. The unpublished papers can be obtained for a nominal copying charge from "The Foundation for Research on the Nature of Man" (FRNM) which publishes the Journal. The most common reason for non-publication is lack of overall significant scoring, this service was in part inspired as a response to criticisms of selective publication as the source of "psi" results. *The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research* (JASPR): early issues (from 1906) concentrated on field work and are thus rather weak in evidential terms. Somewhere around 1925 the ASPR was "taken over" by "spiritualists." Although there was occasional good work published during this period, it could not really be considered a properly refereed, scientific journal, and can't be taken too seriously. In the early 40's, however, it got back to a scientific orientation, and high standards were reimposed. If you're in doubt about any early 40's issue, look for Gardner Murphy's name. It remains less laboratory oriented then the Journal of Parapsychology but this is far from absolute. A good source of reprints for many outstanding original papers in parapsychology is the book *The Basic Experiments in Parapsychology* edited by K. Ramakrishna Rao, published in 1984. Dr. Rao is the current director of FRNM and the editor of the Journal of Parapsychology. The papers are not restricted, however, to that source. Some caution is necessary (and Dr. Rao himself provides it in the introduction). Dr. Rao was forced, because of space limitations, to drop many papers he wished to include, and of course, other people would have chosen papers that Dr. Rao didn't. A more accurate title might, therefore, have been *Some of The Basic Experiments ...*. Also, these papers were selected to provide an overview of experimental parapsychology, not to provide the best existing evidence for the existence of psi. Many of the experiments are the first to investigate a particular phenomena, or to use a particular technique. These frequently contained flaws (major or minor) which were later corrected in further experiments. Some papers were included simply because they sparked controversy. There are of course, many surveys. It is hard to imagine a parapsychologist writing a book about parapsychology for a general audience without including one. You may find such surveys interesting but they tend to be neither complete nor detailed enough to provide much meat. There are, however, several good, technical surveys. The classic is *Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years* by J.G. Pratt, J.B. Rhine, Burke M. Stuart, Charles Stuart and Joseph A. Greenwood. It was first published in 1940 and surveyed the field up to that time. There is much discussion of the criticisms leveled at Rhine's early work, and his answers. The book has been reissued and is still in print. The *Handbook of Parapsychology* edited by B.B. Wolman (not to be confused with a book of the same name by Hans Holtzer) contains many good survey articles. Unfortunately, it has recently gone out of print. I have no doubt at all that by far the most complete source is the irregular series *Advances in Parapsychological Research* edited by Stanley Krippner. The first three volumes were published by Plenum Press, and the fourth by McFarland and Company. Not all the articles are relevant, so I'll list the relevant ones separately. Volume 1, subtitled "Psychokinesis", published in 1977 contains: "Problems and Methods in Psychokinesis Research" by Joseph H. Rush. "Research Findings in Psychokinesis" by Gertrude Schmeidler. Volume 2, subtitled "Extrasensory Perception", published in 1978 contains: "A Survey of Methods and Issues in ESP Research" by Robert L. Morris. "Extrasensory Perception: Research Findings" by John Palmer (this is a monumental survey, running almost 200 pages. If you read only one thing it should be this.) "Theories of Psi" by K. Ramakrishna Rao. Volume 3, published in 1982, was principally intended as an update for the previous two volumes. It contains: "An Updated Survey of Methods and Issues in ESP Research" by Morris. "ESP Research Findings: 1976-1978" by Palmer. "Problems and Methods in Psychokinesis Research" by Rush. "PK Research: Findings and Theories" by Schmeidler (this is not simply an update but goes into areas, most importantly theoretical, not covered by her first paper). I have not yet read Volume 4 which was published in 1984, and so, with one exception cannot recommend any of the papers. The exception is: "Methodological Criticisms of Parapsychology" by Charles Akers. (This is a good, hard, mostly negative look at one particular body of experimental work by an insider. This is in my mind, one of the best pieces of broad critical work around, and I recommend it. If you do read it, however, keep in mind that it has not gone unchallenged, and that it is not universally perceived as a negative evaluation of the evidence it examines. Also, it deals with some of the methodologically more complex areas of parapsychology, so there is a question as to its generality. I'll be glad to discuss it with anyone who has read it.) If you are unable to find any of these I will give one last source. It's primary advantage is accessibility: most technical libraries will have it. It is not, however, complete nor does it give a representative view of the field. It was written by a "convert", essentially to explain why he decided that there was something to the field after all. The author is Robert G. Jahn who is the Dean of Engineering at Princeton. Jahn, Robert G.; The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective; PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, VOL. 70, #2 (February 1982) If you need any help, or wish to know about the "legitimacy" of any source, I'd be glad to provide any help I am able to. 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.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/23/85)
In article <970@decwrl.UUCP> cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper) writes: > >>Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many > >>(conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists > >>would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that > >>the experiment were a parapsychology experiment. > > > > . . . Please document these claims. > >Parapsychology is not widely accepted in the scientific community precisely > >because it has *not* been demonstrated in the way you calim. > > > >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) > > Glad to. .... [Description of literature of >3000 papers omitted.] How pathetic. Almost every mention of early papers carried the warning "flawed, but the flaws were corrected later". And a huge numebr of papers were about methodology, not phenomina. The fact is, there is NO demonstrable, reproducible psychic phenominon after who knows how many years of research. Progress in parapsychology has closely paralleled progress in alchemical transmutation of elements: none, except as spinoffs of another field. (Physics has given us radioactive decay and bombardment, biology has given us magnetic senses in a variety of organisms.) Compare this to any other field recognized as science, and you will readily see why parapsychology is regarded as fraudulent. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
nmhr@nmtvax.UUCP (10/24/85)
>> Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many >> (conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists >> would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ >> the experiment were a parapsychology experiment. This statement is pure, unadulterated horse hockey. I know of no scientist who is informed as to the status of paranormal research and is not participating in such research who considers the techniques of these so-called "scientists" rigorous. Every scientific study has its own problems. Paranormal studies abound in statistical errors, facetious assumptions, and a contemptuous disregard of previous research, negative or otherwise. The problem of purposeful fraud is not nearly as serious as the dilemma of ignorance in the laboratory. The majority of paranormal researchers have little or no knowledge of statistical methods of analyzing data. When these "scientists" do possess such knowledge, they often misuse the skill by drawing conclusions that to them seem obvious, but to outside observers seem facetious. The best technique for ensuring the data is not mishandled is by allowing outside observers who are informed about the research to analyze the data through any series of tests possible. -- Tracy A. McInvale ...!cmc12!lanl!unm-cvax!nmtvax!nmhr ...!ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!nmhr ***DISCLAIMER*** The contents of the above text do not necessarily reflect the views of this organization, the Chicago Cubs, or Jennifer Eaton.
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (10/25/85)
In article <796@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> >> Glad to. .... > >[Description of literature of >3000 papers omitted.] > > >The fact is, there is NO demonstrable, reproducible psychic phenominon >after who knows how many years of research. .... > Um... Yea. Out of all those >3000 papers there was absolutely NO PSI documented. And the greatest part is that Mike didn't have to look at any of those 3000 papers to know that. I guess that sums up the validy of ESP. Mike's 'knowlege at a distance' clairvoyance would seem the best proof of the validity of ESP seen yet in this discussion. -- Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (10/25/85)
In article <829@nmtvax.UUCP> nmhr@nmtvax.UUCP (Tracy McInvale) writes: > >>> Apparent paranormal phenomena has been elicited in the laboratory many >>> (conservatively speaking, hundreds) times under conditions most scientists >>> would consider highly rigorous, particularly if they were not informed that > ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ >>> the experiment were a parapsychology experiment. > This statement is pure, unadulterated horse hockey. I know of no >scientist who is informed as to the status of paranormal research >and is not participating in such research who considers the techniques >of these so-called "scientists" rigorous. Every scientific study has >its own problems. This statement is pure, unadaulterated horse hockey. I know of no scientist who is informed as to the status of paranormal research and is not participating in such research who considers the top parapsychologist as being any other than "scientist" and fully capable people. >Paranormal studies abound in statistical errors, >facetious assumptions, and a contemptuous disregard of previous >research, negative or otherwise. Take any one year of "Psychology Today" and I guarantee you'll find studies abounding in statistical errors, facetious assumptions, and a contemptous disregard of previous research, negative or otherwise. > The problem of purposeful fraud is not nearly as serious as the >dilemma of ignorance in the laboratory. The majority of paranormal >researchers have little or no knowledge of statistical methods of >analyzing data. When these "scientists" do possess such knowledge, >they often misuse the skill by drawing conclusions that to them seem >obvious, but to outside observers seem facetious. Having been around a couple of the "scientist" as you so call them, I wonder what you are talking about. Not only were they well grounded in statistical methods but they actually went overboard being conservative in their analysis. >The best way >for ensuring the data is not mishandled is by allowing outside >observers who are informed about the research to analyze the data >through any series of tests possible. > And this isn't done? I would love for you to mention some of the names of the many scientist you think have looked at the field in depth and who think it's all a joke. (No I don't think the amazing Randi qualifies as a scientist.) I think some quick questions to these people would show just how well versed they are in the field they so dis-approve. Sincerely waiting but not holding my breath -- Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/26/85)
In article <565@oakhill.UUCP> davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) writes: > In article <796@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >The fact is, there is NO demonstrable, reproducible psychic phenominon > >after who knows how many years of research. .... > > Um... Yea. Out of all those >3000 papers there was absolutely NO PSI > documented. Name one paper documenting a psi phenominon that any scientist who has tried reasonably has reproduced. Something I could demonstrate in a classroom. The fact is that if such a phenominon was available for study, it would make significnt waves in the scientific community, and be widely reported in the mainstream eclectic journals (like Science) rather than hidden in obscure or ill-refereed journals the way most psychic research is. > And the greatest part is that Mike didn't have to look at any > of those 3000 papers to know that. > > I guess that sums up the validy of ESP. Mike's 'knowlege at a distance' > clairvoyance would seem the best proof of the validity of ESP seen yet in > this discussion. The fact is that genuine, reproducible, new phenomina are clamorously announced throughout the scientific community. Take for example the recent iridium-enriched layer of clay that was proposed by Alvarez as evidence of a large meteor strike that could have caused a mass extinction. Which recently led to the discovery of soot within that layer, another evidence of a large strike. The theories are widely debated, but the phenomina are well established. Where are the well-established psychic phenomina comparable to scraping off a bit of clay at the boundary zone anywhere worldwide and finding soot and a high measure of iridium? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (10/29/85)
> > >> > >> Glad to. .... > > > >[Description of literature of >3000 papers omitted.] > > > > > >The fact is, there is NO demonstrable, reproducible psychic phenominon > >after who knows how many years of research. .... > > > > Um... Yea. Out of all those >3000 papers there was absolutely NO PSI > documented. And the greatest part is that Mike didn't have to look at any > of those 3000 papers to know that. > I don't have time to read 3000 papers. Would someone who has done so please tell us what the definitive, reproducible experiment demonstrating some "PSI" phenomenon is? Something like the Milliken oil-drop experiment or the Michelson-Morley experiment in physics would be fine. There must be thousands of them. Just tell us how to conduct ONE. (I think Randi describes one in one of his books and encourages people to try it, but we all know that won't work because of Randi's bad vibes.) ONE reproducible experiment is all it takes. What is it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A 85282 {seismo|ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al | ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al ------------------------------------------------------------------------
sharp@noao.UUCP (Nigel Sharp) (10/29/85)
>> ... much quotation omitted .... see original > This statement is pure, unadaulterated horse hockey. I know of no scientist > who is informed as to the status of paranormal research and is not > participating in such research who considers the top parapsychologist as being > any other than "scientist" and fully capable people. > ..... > >The best way for ensuring the data is not mishandled is by allowing outside > >observers who are informed about the research to analyze the data > >through any series of tests possible. > > And this isn't done? I would love for you to mention some of the names of > the many scientist you think have looked at the field in depth and who think > it's all a joke. (No I don't think the amazing Randi qualifies as a > scientist.) There are many, but before you make such statements, noone said it was a joke, and very few of the investigators say so either. For a lot of careful work, try C.E.M.Hansel's book "ESP and Parapsychology: A Critical Re-Evaluation". Hansel is an internationally respected psychologist and a Professor at the University of Manchester in England. > > Sincerely waiting but not holding my breath -- Dave Trissel What are you waiting for ? I would love to see some responsible proof of ESP etc., but I'm not holding my breath either (although I used to be able to manage 3 minutes whilst actively swimming, I'm not so fit now). -- Nigel Sharp National Optical Astronomy Observatories Tucson, Arizona (602) 325-9273 UUCP: {akgua,allegra,arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4,lbl-csam,seismo}!noao!sharp ARPA: noao!sharp@lbl-csam.arpa
cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper HLO2-3/M08 DTN225-5819) (10/30/85)
Commenting on my citations of the experimental literature of parapsychology Mike Huybensz says: >How pathetic. Almost every mention of early papers carried the warning >"flawed, but the flaws were corrected later". Oh come on. In discussing some historical papers, I mention that a few of them from fifty years ago had some methodological flaws. I also mentioned that the flaws were spotted (mostly by people within the field) and quickly corrected. Some other, more recent papers, used new techniques, some of which were incomplete or had minor flaws in them. Again these were corrected. This is called refinement of experimental technique, and it is part of science. It is, for example, why replication is required (at least in principal) before new findings are accepted. If a scientific field is to be considered invalid on this basis, then there are no valid scientific fields. For the most part the flaws in published, refereed papers are quite minor or completely irrelevant to the question the existence of psi phenomena. How relevant is it that an author failed to completely exclude clairvoyance as an alternate explanation in a telepathy experiment? > And a huge numebr of papers >were about methodology, not phenomina. I cited both sources of original papers and detailed technical surveys which describe and give specific citations to experimental reports. I would guess that following up on these would produce somewhere around, say 1500 experimental reports. If you follow up on the citations in these papers you would end up with, I would guess, somewhere between 2500 and 3000 experimental reports. Since intelligent criticism can only be based on an understanding of the methodology used in the field I provided some citations to papers which surveyed methodology. If you can find flaws in the methodologies discussed in those surveys (assuming they accurately describe practice) you don't even have to read the experiments, you will have invalidated the methods used in those experiments. One of those papers about methodology was even some criticism of methodology used in the field. It seemed to me that anyone who honestly wanted to find out about the field would want to know what was in those methodological surveys, so I included them. So we have several thousand experimental papers, and a few methodological papers, which in turn might cite a few dozen papers which are purely methodological. Hardly a "huge number of papers ... about methodology." If you're not interested don't read them; but be prepared to repeat the same silly misunderstandings about methodology that critics keep making (e.g., Rich Rosen's criticism of the interpretation of negative deviations in psi experiments and my response in this newsgroup). >The fact is, there is NO demonstrable, reproducible psychic phenominon >after who knows how many years of research. Progress in parapsychology >has closely paralleled progress in alchemical transmutation of elements: >none, except as spinoffs of another field. (Physics has given us >radioactive decay and bombardment, biology has given us magnetic senses in >a variety of organisms.) Compare this to any other field recognized as >science, and you will readily see why parapsychology is regarded as >fraudulent. I guess you can lead a Huybensz to water but you can't make him think :-) (Sorry, couldn't resist). The fact is, there IS demonstrable, reproducible psychic phenomena. I just finished telling you where you can find it documented. Unless you can show why that evidence should be considered invalid, your denials of the existence of that evidence are simply statements of faith. It is true that psychic phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but then neither can a local supernova or ball lightning . It is true that it takes certain skills and talents to be a successful experimenter but it also takes skills and talent to do experiments depending on microsurgery. A skilled experimenter can elicit parapsychological phenomena somewhere between one experiment in three and one experiment in two. Not as reliable as we would like, but hardly completely unreliable. Progress in parapsychology has been slow but steady: we know more now than we did ten years ago. That you are ignorant of the results does not mean they do not exist. The field is an intrinsically very complex one, yet less effort has probably been put into it in the last fifty years than was put into, say, polywater research in the one or two year period between its "discovery" and its debunking. 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.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/31/85)
In article <1148@decwrl.UUCP> cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper) writes: > Commenting on my citations of the experimental literature of parapsychology > Mike Huybensz says: > >The fact is, there is NO demonstrable, reproducible psychic phenominon > >after who knows how many years of research. > > The fact is, there IS demonstrable, reproducible > psychic phenomena... Wow, that sure sounds positive! But then Topher starts to qualify the statement with the traditional excuses... > It is true that psychic phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but then > neither can a local supernova or ball lightning. A local supernova, while infrequent, is observed by much of the population of the earth almost simultaneously. (I have no significant opinion on ball lightning.) The "best" psychic phenomina (which compose your literature, since you probably exclude Geller and his fraudulent ilk) are privately performed by a few potential conspirators, out of the eyes of skeptics. > It is true that it takes > certain skills and talents to be a successful experimenter but it also takes > skills and talent to do experiments depending on microsurgery. A skilled > experimenter can elicit parapsychological phenomena somewhere between one > experiment in three and one experiment in two. Not as reliable as we would > like, but hardly completely unreliable. Golly, if we can compare it to something medical, it must be SCIENCE! Experiments depending on microsurgery can be performed with skeptics in charge of every aspect except the microsurgery, or with sufficiently skilled skeptics. Microsurgical technique is something readily learned and independant of the experiment. Experimental success in parapsychology does not come to skeptics. > Progress in parapsychology has been slow but steady: we know more now than we > did ten years ago. That you are ignorant of the results does not mean they > do not exist. The field is an intrinsically very complex one, yet less > effort has probably been put into it in the last fifty years than was put > into, say, polywater research in the one or two year period between its > "discovery" and its debunking. What you know now that you didn't ten years ago are alot of cases of fraud, and some techniques for combatting them. Is the field complex? Well, theology is complex to: like theology, I'd say the complexity is a result of too little data to base theory upon. Has too little effort been spent on parapsychology? It depends on your attitude. Many Christians say "If there is no God and you spend some time worshipping, you lose little, but if there is you stand to gain everything." This is the same stupid attitude that will indefinitely fund parapsychology, diverting resources from sound science that is producing real results. We've seen decades of fruitless research, and have nothing to show for it except numerous exposed frauds. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/02/85)
In article <1148@decwrl.UUCP> cooper@pbsvax.DEC (Topher Cooper) writes: >It is true that psychic phenomena cannot be produced on demand, but then >neither can a local supernova or ball lightning . It is true that it takes >certain skills and talents to be a successful experimenter but it also takes >skills and talent to do experiments depending on microsurgery. A skilled >experimenter can elicit parapsychological phenomena somewhere between one >experiment in three and one experiment in two. This is not reproducibility in the ordinary (scientific) sense of the word. The problem is not that the phenomena can only be elicited sometimes, but the dependence on the experimenter. What are these skills and talents required to be a successful parapsychic researcher? As far as I can tell, the only available description of them is that one gets positive results from parapsychology experiments. As long as that is the case, one must suspect the methodology or technique of those who get results. In particular, one must suspect that they are, intentionally or not, somehow giving the subjects access to information which biases the results. Unless you can describe what these skills are, you really are coming up with a variant of "the results only manifest in the proper environment," as originally charged. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108