flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn) (02/06/84)
This weekend I read for the first time Martin Gardner's and James Randi's books on ESP. I hadn't realized just what a preposterous state the 'science' of parapsychology is in. It must be frustrating to the honest and serious scientists (I suppose there must be some) investigating paranormal phenomena to have the field so pervaded by fraud, incompetence, and experimental bias. Fraud? Exposed again and again. Incompetence? A mild word for people like Targ and Puthoff who are so desperately eager to find positive results that the experiments they design are just ridiculous - riddled with opportunities for conscious or unconscious bias that vitiate their results. Moreover, T&P and those like them have never answered the legitimate objections of their critics, and show no interest in enlisting the help of people like Gardner and Randi to design experiments in whose results one can place some confidence. There is an extremely simple answer to the question of why supposed paranormal effects can be seen only under circumstances that arouse the suspicions (or worse) of professional stage magicians. Any experiment which is designed in such a way - or carried out under circumstances - that allow the possibility of bias or cheating, has been designed by incompetent or dishonest people. Bias? It seems clear that the reason T&P et al. keep coming up with flawed experiments is that rigidly controlled experiments produce no positive results. I have yet to hear of *any* experimental results in parapsychology which have produced reliable evidence that paranormal phenomena actually exist.
dir@cbosgd.UUCP (Dean Radin) (02/08/84)
If all you know about psi research is what you read in Martin Gardner's and James Randi's books, then you know very little. The books are entertaining, to be sure, but accurate and dispassionate? Hardly. Randi and Gardner both make handsome livings hawking their books and acting the arch-rivals of psi researchers. They are showmen and magicians, and Randi has stated in public that one of the reasons he's so strongly against psi is pure economics: As a magician, Randi relies on the audience's belief that what he does is NOT psi, but stage illusion, otherwise anyone could do the kind of magic he does using psi, and the mystery would be deflated from his act. Mentalists, on the other hand, for the most part strongly support belief in psi for exactly the opposite reason. It is to their economic benefit to have people believe that psi exists so their mentalist tricks seem real. If you want a more balanced, less suspect approach to psi criticism, try reading a book like "The Psychology of Transcendence" by Andrew Neher or "The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering Perspective" by Robert Jahn, in the Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 70, No. 2, Feb. 1982.
dvk@mi-cec.UUCP (Dan Klein) (02/08/84)
I have observed "paranormal" phenomena, so you will have a hard time convincing me that they don't exist. I put the quotes around paranormal because for me, they are simply normal. (The subject in question is me). Now, as to reliability, it isn't. Nor is it reproducable on demand. It is not scientifically verifiable, because often the situation leading up to its observance are not of an experimentally reproducable nature. But: It also is not coincidence. Example: I have not talked to Andrea in 2 months, nor have I really thought about her. Suddenly I get the inspiration to call. As I am walking to the phone, it rings. Andrea is calling me. The same thing happens with my sister (often we find ourselves saying "I was just going to call you"). I am willing to write off my telepathic/empathetic abilities to simply the power of observation. However the telephone episodes are another story. I can attribute a "mental link" to my sister as being linked to our filial association. Andrea is not related though. Can I prove anything? No. You have to take my word for it, and I think I am a bit more believable than Uri Geller, because 1) I am a scientist, and not a charlatan actor, and 2) I realize that I can't prove anything, so I don't come in with drum roll and fanfare. I have also tried telekenisis, and I can't to it. Not even on a mote of dust, or a smoke particle. But I can slow my heart - that is a more believable system. I also can't do precognition. (If I could, I'd go play the lottery a lot). But occasionally, I am empathic and telepathic. No, I can't "read your mind". It depends on who, and where, and when. But it does happen. -Dan Klein, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (02/09/84)
The motives & interests of advocates & opponents of ESP (research) are irrelevant: what counts is the evidence & arugument each side offers. The claim being made about Gardner's & Randi's books is that they offer overwhelming evidence & argument that not only ESP claims are false, & the notion ESP virtually meaningless for science, but that many cases of outright fraud have occurred (& are fully documented). Strictly speaking, "balance" & "dispassion" are irrelevant to making a case for/against anything: what really counts is crucial evidence & cogent argument. Cheers, Ron Rizzo
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (02/11/84)
(I'll take this one, guys. The rest of you West Coast crazies, just
keep banging those hot tubs together ...)
Dan Klein tells us that he has observed himself to be paranormal. The
observed incident is that, just as he thought of a distant person for
the first time in two months, the phone rang; she was calling. QED.
Is there anyone who *hasn't* had this experience? Coincidence, on the
face of it. Made the more believable because you *don't* remember the
many times that you think of a person and the phone *doesn't* ring, or
it rings but it's someone else calling.
Dan, you may as you say be a scientist, but you're no statistician.
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP]
(orca!andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]emjej@uokvax.UUCP (02/15/84)
#R:mi-cec:-20000:uokvax:3800022:000:2852 uokvax!emjej Feb 13 14:04:00 1984 >/***** uokvax:net.misc / mi-cec!dvk / 10:22 am Feb 10, 1984 */ >I have observed "paranormal" phenomena, so you will have a hard time >convincing me that they don't exist. You mean you have observed phenomena that you *interpret* as "paranormal" (I use the quotes as you do here.) >But: It also is not coincidence. Example: I have not talked to Andrea >in 2 months, nor have I really thought about her. Suddenly I get the >inspiration to call. As I am walking to the phone, it rings. Andrea is >calling me. The same thing happens with my sister (often we find ourselves >saying "I was just going to call you"). I'll bite--how is that not coincidence? Friends and relatives are people that one is likely to call. If they live in the same time zone, they are likely to call at times one is likely to call them. If you had an urge to call Francois Mitterand and he called, and you told him "I was just going to call you," that would be rather less likely. >I am willing to write off my telepathic/empathetic abilities to simply >the power of observation. However the telephone episodes are another story. >I can attribute a "mental link" to my sister as being linked to our filial >association. Andrea is not related though. Can I prove anything? No. >You have to take my word for it, and I think I am a bit more believable than >Uri Geller, because 1) I am a scientist, and not a charlatan actor, and 2) I >realize that I can't prove anything, so I don't come in with drum roll and >fanfare. Perhaps, but you're just as vulnerable as the rest of us (including me) to statistical fallacies such as those the above incidents are examples of. I will take your word for it that the above has happened to you, but I do not consider it proof of anything (nor are fallacious interpretations any indication of stupidity or the like--people *want* to believe in spoon-bending, clairvoyance, and other such stuff). >I have also tried telekinesis, and I can't do it. Not even on a mote of >dust, or a smoke particle. I'm glad to see that you've tried it. Somehow, moving small objects on level, frictionless surfaces seems like an obvious thing to try to do to test telekinesis, rather trying to effect the outcome of supposedly random events. Have any parapsychologists set up such an experiment? >But I can slow my heart - that is a more believable system. Not to mention one for which no ESPoid explanation would seem to be necessary. >I also can't do precognition. (If I could, I'd go >play the lottery a lot). But occasionally, I am empathic and telepathic. >No, I can't "read your mind". It depends on who, and where, and when. But >it does happen. With all due respect, and no derogatory implications, I must beg to differ about your conclusions. > -Dan Klein, Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh /* ---------- */ James Jones
jeff@heurikon.UUCP (02/16/84)
I've also had a few of those experiences where I'm about
to call somebody and, while going to the phone, it rings
and the caller is that very person. Spooky.
But I attribute it to coincidence. How may times have you
thought about calling sombody and the phone *doesn't* ring?
You don't tend to remember those incidents. Many things
along these lines can happen, given enough time.
--
/"""\ Jeffrey Mattox, Heurikon Corp, Madison, WI
|O.O| {harpo, hao, philabs}!seismo!uwvax!heurikon!jeff (news & mail)
\_=_/ ihnp4!heurikon!jeff (mail - fast)richard@sequent.UUCP (02/17/84)
There is a simple psychological explanation for this phenomena: >> But: It also is not coincidence. Example: I have not talked to Andrea >> in 2 months, nor have I really thought about her. Suddenly I get the >> inspiration to call. As I am walking to the phone, it rings. Andrea is >> calling me... I honestly can't recall the term used (something like Random Reinforcement) but it's the same thing that lies behind all of Murphy's laws. For instance, when in the bank, the other line always moves faster. Or on a crowded highway, the other lane does. What's happening is you remember the more intense episodes much more effectively. By intense, I refer to the fact that when at the bank, if everything goes well, so what? But if you're standing there for quite awhile, fidgeting and impatient, the experience is hammered into your brain. Same goes for driving, or dropping screwdriver underneath the frig, or tossing frisbees under a car or on a roof. You undoubtedly talked to your sister literally thousands of times when the other wasn't expecting it. But there are contributing factors here as well. Growing up in the same home, you've been conditioned alike. Perhaps in your family, *the* time to call distant friends (Grandma) was Sundays evenings, around 8 or so. So every Sunday, around that time, your subconcious might dredge it up. Another factor is that only family or friends tend to call at these times, so when the phone rings, you might get a "prescient" feeling that it's Andrea, but only in the corner of your mind - so if it's someone else, it doesn't occur to you "I thought that would be her." If it is her, you think "I knew it!" I suppose it would be odd if at one am and one is, ahem, "involved" with one's wife, and suddenly one thinks of one's sister, and lo! the phone rings! It's her, and she was in, uh, similar circumstances. If this sort of thing occurs, let's just call it paranormal. I don't want to think of any other explanations. from the confused and bleeding fingertips of ...!sequent!richard
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (02/18/84)
There are many situations where ESP seems to come into play, but PROBABLY didn't. One that bothered me for quite a while ran something like this: A friend and I were cleaning up the kitchen after eating. Neither of us were talking to each other at that moment. Then suddenly, for no reason that I could understand, I jokingly said, "Bipitty, Bopitty, Boo!" (words from an old Disney jingle). My friend almost dropped the dish she was holding. Apparently she had been thinking about that song/jingle, and had just mentally gotten to the point where the "Bipitty, Bopitty, Boo!" would go when I suddenly blurted it out. There are three possible explanations for this event: 1) ESP 2) Coincidence (rather low probability!) 3) Even though she didn't think that she was vocally humming or singing the tune, and even though I didn't remember hearing her hum or sing any tune, she actually was and I actually did hear it. This event still bothers me from time to time, but, even though it doesn't mesh with our conscious memory of the event, I must assume that (3) was the actual cause. --Lauren--
andrew@orca.UUCP (02/20/84)
When I was in high school, I *knew* I had ESP. The real thing: I could
consistently predict certain events in the future with greater than 90%
accuracy. I was uncanny.
Here's how it worked: my favorite radio station was a "mellow rock"
outlet. My ability was to predict what the next song played would be,
long before the DJ announced it, even before the previous song had
finished. I would wow my friends.
After I got to college, someone explained to me about skeleton stations
which run prerecorded tapes with several hours of music. Naturally the
selections occurred in the same order every time a tape was played ...
and it took only a few playings to subconsciously memorize that order.
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP]
(orca!andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]andrew@orca.UUCP (02/20/84)
"I used to know a guy down at school who once told me in
passing that he often knew that the phone was going to ring
before it actually did so."
When I lived in west Los Angeles, I also had this power. I would pick
up the receiver just before the phone would ring, and talk to the
calling party. This amazed my friends.
It turns out that, for many of the GTE lines in west LA, a low power
pulse would precede the ring signal by about a second. With sensitive
hearing, I could detect the slight murmur of the ringer and know that
the phone was about to ring.
It is certainly possible that a person could become attuned to this
signal at the subconscious, rather than conscious, level, and actually
believe that he had the power to predict phone calls. Major world
superstitions have been founded on less.
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP]
(orca!andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]danjo@ihuxs.UUCP (Dan Johns) (02/20/84)
All things are known to the mind of God. Therefore, there is no such thing as coincidence or randomness.
urban@trwspp.UUCP (02/20/84)
Another possibility is that sometime earlier one of you said (for example) a sentence that was intoned or inflected similarly to the beginning of the song and that triggered both of you. Or something else peripherally associated with "Cinderella". Even kitchen noise that's vaguely "in tune" with the beginning of the song could do it. When my brother and I are together, similar things will happen; we both think of similar old-time-TV quotes after a long pause that followed something (seemingly) unrelated. On at least one occasion I was able to back-trace my line of association and realized what had happened. Of course, my brother and I share a lot of the same experiences. It's much more striking with a non-relative. Mike
ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (02/21/84)
Darrell Plank (ihopa!dap) writes, in part:
I used to know a guy down at school who once told me in passing
that he often knew that the phone was going to ring before it
actually did so. ... Later on, during a cooperative work
assignment, I became roommate to the same guy. Several times during
our rooming together he would say "Phone's going to ring" and
within a few seconds it would ring. It would often be my parents
who only call when they have a definite reason (i.e., no regularly
made calls every night, maybe averaging once a week). He was NEVER
wrong! I would remember that quite vividly because it would have
been the exception to the rule. ... I didn't think it worked at
will. Maybe three or four times throughout the summer. ... the
calls came only about once a week (again, not on any "regular
basis") and he nailed down the time to within seconds.
I agree with Darrell that coincidence and conspiracy are unlikely here,
and I suppose we can assume that he is telling the truth.
Well, here's another explanation. What makes a telephone ring? The
central office ("exchange") sends it a "ring signal". It sends a
pulse of voltage about 1/2 second long at 6-second intervals. The suggestion
is that on your particular phone system, the ring signal generator would
occasionally be caught "out of phase" and produce a very short pulse
(or one of subnormal voltage) at the beginning of the signal -- that is,
6 seconds before the first ring. Since most phones have mechanical
ringers ("bells"), this abnormal pulse could cause some motion in the
mechanism but not enough to sound a ring. Thus it could be audible but
very faint. So the friend is simply someone who has attuned himself to it.
The fact that he doesn't like to talk about it suggests that he has not
learned this consciously, but only knows that he gets the feeling.
Confirming evidence: It only happens occasionally; it happens in the home
where it is usually quiet (and where you can become familiar with the phone);
and it happens *only a few seconds before the phone actually rings*.
If the telephone was known to occasionally start with a short ring,
that would be additional confirming evidence (but not necessary evidence).
If he ever predicted a ring in a noisy environment, this explanation
is shot.
The sensitivity of human hearing is unbelievable to those who have
not had it directly demonstrated, or so I read and believe.
Mark Braderedhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (02/21/84)
--------------------- Sure; I've been able to do that, too--at least when the room is relatively quiet. Phones often make a faint sound before they ring. It's hard to discribe, as it isn't exactly a `click'; it is sort of like the buzzing sound a malfunctioning telephone bell makes, but briefer and fainter. And it happens because of a voltage transient that occurs when the connection is made to your phone but before the ring signal actually begins. I'm often not aware of the sound, but just of the sensation that `the phone is about to ring'. We are so conditioned to react to a ringing phone that the most subliminal sensory input can become associated with it, even if it is so faint that our conscious mind always rejects it as `noise'. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
porges@inmet.UUCP (02/24/84)
#R:vortex:-25800:inmet:6400091:000:561 inmet!porges Feb 23 02:21:00 1984 To the "bippity boppity boo" singers: Imagine my surprise to read that you simultaneously thought of this song, in light of the fact that it popped into my head about two hours before I read your posting....and I sure don't know why it did. This happened about a half hour after the netnews item was received at our site, but I was nowhere near a terminal at the time. I claim nothing except that the facts are as stated herein. -- Don Porges ...harpo!inmet!porges ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porges
dap@ihopa.UUCP (afsd) (02/25/84)
Well, you can fault me for not doing double blind experiments with my former roommate and submitting the results to a respected scientific journal, but facts are facts and these are them: I used to know a guy down at school who once told me in passing that he often knew that the phone was going to ring before it actually did so. This was pretty wierd, but the thing that was interesting was that he didn't tell this at parties or talk incessantly about it. In fact, you practically had to pry it out of him. I had a pretty hard time swallowing it. Later on, during a cooperative work assignment, I became roommate to the same guy. Several times during our rooming together he would say "Phone's going to ring" and within a few seconds it would ring. It would often be my parents who only call when they have a definite reason (i.e., no regularly made calls every night, maybe averaging once a week). He was NEVER wrong! I would remember that quite vividly because it would have been the exception to the rule. Well, I guess I should have rushed him over to the local college and made him repeat this feat at will for the professors, but I didn't think it worked at will. Maybe three or four times throughout the summer. Nonetheless, it is an amazing thing to see it happen, especially after he had told me months before that he could often make such predictions. Those are the facts. Keep in mind that these were NOT regularly made calls at all! I'll go so far as to admit that my parents typically call between 6:30 and 9:00. That doesn't change the fact that the calls came only about once a week (again, not on any "regular basis") and he nailed down the time to within seconds. I can also rule out the fact that he might have covertly agreed with my parents on when to call. I know my parents better than that. I realize that ANYTHING can be explained away as coincidence, but that seems like an almost nonexistent possibility in this case, especially since he NEVER made a mistake and he claimed before he ever knew we were going to be roommates that he had this ability. Darrell Plank BTL-IH ihnp4!ihopa!dap
larry@ihuxf.UUCP (Larry Marek) (02/29/84)
Talk about ESP!! Look carefully at the posting and received dates!! Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxf.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site proper.UUCP Path: ihuxf!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxl!ulysses!burl!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!dual!proper!gam From: gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: ESP Message-ID: <1036@proper.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Feb-84 00:43:38 CST Article-I.D.: proper.1036 Posted: Wed Feb 29 00:43:38 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 28-Feb-84 04:29:43 CST References: <258@vortex.UUCP>, <162@ihopa.UUCP> Organization: Proper UNIX, San Leandro, CA Lines: 20 -- Larry Marek ihnp4!ihuxf!larry
gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (02/29/84)
~ What I find rather silly about this ESP discussion is that people are willing to say: "couldn't have been a coicidence, couldn't have been subliminal communication ... MUST be ESP ..." ... as easily as you could say "MUST have been the tooth fairy" or "MUST have been aliens from Planet X." You've simply taken a mysterious incident and given it a pseudo-scientific name, `ESP.' I am open-minded. I do not know what strange things could bring about two people thinking the same thing at the same time, or how someone could predict something before it happens without any normal sensory clues. BUT just by calling it `ESP' you have still not identified what is going on! STILL nothing has been explained. `ESP' may as well just stand for "I don't know."