davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (01/31/86)
Topher Cooper has mentioned previously how many in the 'standard' sciences use
various means to reject the findings of parapsychology. To that end:
[Reprinted without permission from PERSPECTIVE Vol 7., Number 5, Feb., 1986]
ESP In Dreams: Psychologist Criticizes Psychology's Neglect of the Facts
The prejudice of the scientific community against the factual evidence for
the existence of psi has been receiving increased attention in recent years.
There is growing awareness that scientist reject the psi hypothesis for
reasons other than simply the lack of valid data. Psychologist themselves are
perhaps the most guilty of this negative prejudice. Some concrete evidence
of this not-so-scientific attitude, as manifested in the distorted reporting
and reviewing of previously published factual results, has now been presented
for attention to the psychologists' own professional organization.
Yale University psychologist Irvin Child, reporting in the official flag-
ship publication of the American Psychological Association, the quite
prestigious AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, has demonstrated how psycholigists have
tended to distort the facts concerning the evidence for ESP in dreams
("Psychology and Anomalous Observations: The Qustion of ESP in Dreams,"
November, 1985, Vol. 40, No. 11, 1219-1230). The bulk of his indictment
concerns how psychologists, who claim to be presenting in their books an
objective overview of research in parapsychology, have misled readers about
the true facts and results of the influential dream telepathy studies con-
ducted at Maimonides Hospital by Montague Ulman and his associates, Stanley
Krippner and Charles Honorton (confer Ullman's book, DREAM TELEPATHY).
These experiments involved attempts to telepathically influence the dream
content of a subject asleep in a dream lab by having another person-the
"sending" agent-concentrate on a picture all night, as if trying to "impress"
the contents of that picture upon the mind of the sleeping subject. Dr.
Child takes some pains to set the record straight about how these experiments
were conducted and how the results were analyzed.
The experiments provided generally favorable statistical results, which
Dr. Child confirms, even after modifying the statistical analysis along more
stringent lines. Whether or not the significant number of "hits" is truly
indicative of telepathy or subject to different interpretations, Dr. Child
believes that the results of these experiments represent a genuine "anomaly"
that requires some sort of explanation.
If this research had concerned a more conventional topic, Dr. Child
argues, then the positive results of the experiments, have such important
scientific implications, would have received wide attention and careful
evaluation. The Maimonides studies, however, as the author demonstrates, have
been presented in a distorted fashion, having their procedures and results
portrayed in a manner that gives an erroneous impression of the true nature
of the research.
The author chooses five books written by psychologists on the topic of
parapsychology and scrutinizes their presentation of the Maimonides research.
Here are some of the types of misrepresentations and distortions he found in
these books: devoting more coverage to a negative finding than to the overall
positive results, exaggerating the apparent possibilities for "sensory
leakage" (whereby the information can be transmitted by some sensory means
other than ESP), and offering spurious criticisms of the research methodology
that are not relevant to the experiments as they were actually conducted
(saying, for example, that no control group was used when, in fact, controls
were used). In at least one case analyzed by Dr. Child, the reviewer implies
that the reader should infer that the results are fraudulent.
The author does not speculate about any possible reasons or motivations
the reviewers might have had for distorting the facts. He does, however,
point out how often the reviewers are committing the very sins they accuse
the Maimonides researchers of committing. For example, the researchers are
accused of "shoe fitting" or twisting the facts to fit the interpretation that
is desired. Dr. Child asserts that the Maimonides researchers are innocent of
this charge, but that the reviewers are quite quilty of it themselves.
The Maimonides experiments do pose a legitimate and formidable challenge
to psychologists who are disbelievers in ESP, Dr. Child insists, and are
worthy of better treatment than they have received. He believes that the
reviews that this work has received mislead other psychologists who read them.
He concludes his article by encouraging the psychology community to read the
original reports of the research themselves.
Although little of Dr. Child's criticisms is new to parapsychologists,
it is nevertheless a significant event in the history of this field when a
psychologist of such prominence and academic standing documents this problem
so forcefully within the hallowed pages of psychology's principal professional
publication.
Author's address: Dr. Irvin L. Child, Department of Psychology, Yale
University, P.O. Box 11A, New Haven, CT 06520-7447.
-- Dave Trissel Motorola Semiconductor, Austin, Texas
{seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet
[Sorry, our mailer will not usually work replying to BITNET, ARPANET etc.]